Also known as: suppress · suppresses · suppressed · suppressing · motion to suppress
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A procedural mechanism by which a court excludes evidence obtained through a constitutional violation. The mechanism is invoked by pretrial motion and serves to deter unlawful police conduct while protecting the integrity of the judicial process.
A procedural mechanism by which a court excludes evidence obtained through a constitutional violation. The mechanism is invoked by pretrial motion and serves to deter unlawful police conduct while protecting the integrity of the judicial process.
Government action that prohibits or substantially burdens protected speech or religious exercise. Such action triggers strict scrutiny when it is not neutral or generally applicable and is directed at suppressing the protected conduct.
Government action that prohibits or substantially burdens protected speech or religious exercise. Such action triggers strict scrutiny when it is not neutral or generally applicable and is directed at suppressing the protected conduct.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Congress authorizes federal troops to assist a state governor facing an armed uprising by citizens refusing to pay a newly enacted excise tax. The troops restore order and arrest the leaders. The constitutional grant of authority permits the deployment without violating state sovereignty limits.
Police enter a home without a warrant after receiving an anonymous tip and seize an illegal submachine gun. The homeowner moves before trial to bar the gun from evidence. The court must decide whether the entry violated the Fourth Amendment and whether the evidence should be suppressed under the applicable criminal procedure rule.
Federal agents enter a residence without a warrant and seize narcotics. The resident moves before trial to bar the narcotics from evidence. The court must decide whether the entry violated the Fourth Amendment and whether the evidence should be suppressed under the applicable criminal procedure rule.
On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx. The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search. Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseThe prosecution withholds a witness statement that directly contradicts the trial testimony of its key eyewitness. The defense moves before trial to bar related testimony from evidence. The court must decide whether the nondisclosure requires exclusion under the applicable criminal procedure rule.
Brady and his companion Boblit were found guilty of murder in the first degree and were sentenced to death following separate trials in Maryland, with Brady tried first. At his trial Brady took the stand and admitted his participation in the crime but claimed that Boblit did the actual killing. Prior to the trial Brady's counsel requested the prosecution to allow him to examine Boblit's extrajudicial statements. Several of those statements were shown to him. One statement dated July 9, 1958, in which Boblit admitted the actual homicide, was withheld by the prosecution and did not come to Brady's notice until after he had been tried, convicted, and sentenced and after his conviction had been affirmed. Brady moved the trial court for a new trial based on the newly discovered evidence that had been suppressed by the prosecution. His appeal from a denial of that motion was dismissed by the Court of Appeals without prejudice to relief under the Maryland Post Conviction Procedure Act. The petition for post-conviction relief was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal the Court of Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case. The crime was murder committed in the perpetration of a robbery. In Maryland punishment for that crime is life imprisonment or death, the jury being empowered to restrict the punishment to life by addition of the words "without capital punishment." By reason of the state constitution the jury in a criminal case are the judges of law as well as of fact.
3 common questions
A defendant must raise a suppression claim before trial under the timing rules for pretrial motions. Failure to do so waives the claim unless the court grants relief for good cause.
Supporting sources
No. When officers reasonably rely on a warrant later found invalid, the evidence is not suppressed because exclusion would not deter misconduct.
Supporting sources
Evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that its disclosure would have produced a different result. The standard applies to both exculpatory and impeachment evidence.
Supporting sources
A city enacts a ban on a particular method of animal slaughter used exclusively by members of a religious group. The group challenges the ordinance as singling out its practices. Because the law was enacted to suppress the religious conduct rather than to serve a neutral public-health goal, it fails strict scrutiny.
A state bar association prohibits all newspaper advertisements listing prices for routine services such as uncontested divorces. A law firm challenges the prohibition. The blanket ban on truthful commercial speech cannot be justified by paternalistic concerns about professionalism and is therefore unconstitutional.
2 common questions
A law triggers strict scrutiny when it is not neutral or generally applicable and was enacted to suppress a religious practice. The government must then show the law is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
Supporting sources
No. Blanket bans on truthful advertising of routine services violate the First Amendment. States may regulate only false or misleading ads.
Supporting sources
…Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion "with a view to its general suppression." It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of "this general demoralization": "The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character…