Florida Criminal Lawyer Blog

In many criminal cases, it is appropriate for the Broward criminal defense attorney to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained by a law enforcement agency during its investigation of an alleged crime. The motion is a written request to the judge presiding over the case, which asks him or her to exclude certain evidence from consideration. If a defendant’s rights were violated, for example, it is inappropriate to consider the evidence obtained as a result.

Motions to suppress are based on the exclusionary rule, a legal rule that primarily exists only in the United States. This doctrine states that the evidence against the defendant should be excluded from consideration at a criminal trial if the police or other law enforcement agents did not legally obtain the evidence or statements. The law has become tougher on this issue over time, but the general rule is that “fruit of the poisonous tree” may not be used against a criminal defendant. That means that information or evidence that would not have been obtained but for a violation of the defendant’s rights cannot be used, because it is tainted -- or “poisoned” -- as a result of the violation.

Either the Fourth Amendment or the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States could be the basis for a motion to suppress. The Fourth Amendment is related to a citizen’s protection from illegal searches, which can include a person’s body, a vehicle, or even a home. The search does not have to be just a physical search of the vehicle’s contents, but could even be a motion to suppress the findings of an illegal traffic stop. For example, if a police officer pulls over a car without a valid reason and as a result finds evidence of criminal activity, his attorney can move to suppress the findings. If the court grants the motion to suppress, the driver’s identity or observations made by the officer could be suppressed. The evidence might be suppressed if the arresting officer found marijuana or other illegal drugs, whereas the identity of the car’s driver could be suppressed if he were driving with a suspended license.

A Fifth Amendment-based motion to suppress has to do with statements a defendant made prior to being read his or her Miranda rights. For instance, if someone is taken into custody and questioned about involvement in an alleged crime, but the interrogating police officer does not “Mirandize” the defendant, the statements may not be admissible in court. The context is important, however. Certain kinds of statements are still admissible, even if the Miranda rights were not read. Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney William Moore consults with clients to decide if motions to suppress are useful depending on the facts of individual cases.

Posted by William Ryan Moore | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Miranda Rights , Police , Search & Seizure

Bookmark:

If you ask any Broward County criminal attorney, he or she will tell you that there are three different levels of encounters between police and citizens for the purpose of Fourth Amendment analysis. The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The first level is a consensual encounter between a police officer and citizen where there is only minimal contact. The second level is a more investigatory stop where the officer may reasonably detain a citizen temporarily if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Note that a citizen encounter becomes an investigatory stop once the officer shows authority in a manner that restrains the defendant’s freedom of movement such that a reasonable person would feel compelled to comply. The third level is an arrest, which must be supported by the officer's probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed.

A recent Broward County event illustrated the value of Fourth Amendment search and seizure protections. A man went to a local strip club and parked his car not in the lane of a side lot. The vehicle was not in a marked parking space, but it was also not blocking traffic. As he got out, he locked his doors and proceeded to go into the club. The man was stopped by police officers and was physically pulled back to his car. As he was questioned, one of the police officers shined a light into his car, illuminating what appeared to be a crack rock on the front seat. The man was subsequently arrested. Upon appeal, the appellate court ruled that the officers lacked the well-founded suspicion of criminal activity necessary to justify the detention. Therefore, the evidence found after the police detained the man should have been suppressed in court. The officers did not witness a crime and the vehicle was not blocking traffic. This is an example of unlawful search and seizure in Broward County.

For more information on this article, contact Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney, William Moore.

Posted by William Ryan Moore | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Search & Seizure

Bookmark: