When facing criminal charges, particularly OVI cases, one of the most powerful tools in the defense arsenal is the motion to suppress. This legal mechanism can eliminate key evidence against you, often resulting in dismissed charges or significantly weakened prosecution cases. Understanding how suppression motions work and why they matter can make the difference between conviction and acquittal.

The Constitutional Foundation of Your Protection

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution provide nearly identical protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. These provisions guarantee your right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and possessions. They establish that police cannot search or seize without a warrant, unless specific exceptions apply, and any warrant must be based on probable cause with particular descriptions of what is to be searched and seized.

Ohio courts have consistently held that these protections are coextensive, meaning Ohio's constitutional provision provides at least as much protection as the federal Fourth Amendment. In some circumstances, Ohio courts have interpreted the state constitution to provide even greater protections than federal law requires. This dual layer of constitutional protection creates multiple avenues for challenging illegal police conduct.

The fundamental principle remains clear: obtaining a warrant is the rule, not the exception. Police must justify any warrantless search or seizure by demonstrating that a specific, recognized exception to the warrant requirement applied. When they cannot meet this burden, the evidence they obtained must be excluded.

Understanding the Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule serves as the enforcement mechanism for constitutional protections. When police violate Fourth Amendment rights, any evidence obtained through that violation becomes inadmissible in court. This rule exists not to protect guilty parties but to deter future police misconduct and maintain the integrity of the judicial system.

The purpose of suppression extends beyond the immediate case. Courts recognize that confirming criminal conduct should not overshadow the broader purpose of deterring constitutional violations. By excluding illegally obtained evidence, courts send a clear message that constitutional rights cannot be ignored, regardless of what evidence might be discovered through illegal means.

The exclusionary rule reaches beyond just the immediate evidence discovered during an illegal search or seizure. Under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, any evidence derived from the initial illegality also faces exclusion. This means that if police conduct an illegal traffic stop and discover drugs, not only are the drugs inadmissible, but so is any confession obtained afterward or evidence discovered based on information learned during the illegal stop.

The Motion to Suppress Process

A motion to suppress serves as the procedural vehicle to challenge the admissibility of evidence. Ohio courts have recognized that these motions need not be overly complex or detailed. The motion simply puts the ball in play, serving notice that the defendant intends to require the state to demonstrate compliance with all constitutional and statutory requirements.

A motion to suppress must generally be in writing unless the court permits otherwise, state with particularity the grounds upon which it is made, and set forth the relief or order sought. Courts have found that even relatively simple motions satisfy these requirements when they identify the constitutional or statutory violation at issue.

The timing of suppression motions matters. Generally, these motions must be filed before trial, though courts may permit later filing for good cause. Defense attorneys typically file suppression motions after receiving discovery and identifying potential constitutional violations. The motion triggers a hearing where both sides present evidence and argument about whether the challenged evidence should be excluded.

The Burden of Proof at Suppression Hearings

At suppression hearings, the burden of proof depends on whether the challenged police action involved a warrant. When police acted without a warrant, the prosecution bears the burden of demonstrating that their actions fell within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. They must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the search or seizure was constitutional.

This burden requires more than mere assertions by police officers. The state must present specific evidence establishing each element of whatever exception they claim justified the warrantless search or seizure. Conclusory statements about following standard procedure or having probable cause do not suffice without supporting facts.

When police acted with a warrant, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the warrant was invalid or that police exceeded its scope. This might involve showing that the warrant lacked probable cause, contained material misrepresentations, failed to particularly describe what was to be searched or seized, or that officers searched areas or seized items beyond what the warrant authorized.

Common Grounds for Suppression

Suppression motions arise from various constitutional violations. Illegal traffic stops occur when officers lack reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or traffic violations. Even minor deviations from traffic laws that do not affect public safety may not justify stops under Ohio law.

Unlawful searches happen when police exceed the scope of consent, search without a warrant or applicable exception, or conduct inventory searches without following standardized procedures. Each type of search has specific requirements that prosecutors must prove were satisfied.

Miranda violations lead to suppression of statements made during custodial interrogation without proper warnings or valid waiver. Physical evidence discovered based on unwarned statements may also face suppression as fruit of the poisonous tree.

Prolonged detentions that exceed the scope of the original justification for the stop can result in suppression of evidence discovered during the unlawful extension. Officers must have independent reasonable suspicion to extend stops beyond their original purpose.

Strategic Considerations in Suppression Litigation

Successful suppression litigation requires careful analysis of police reports, video evidence, and witness testimony. Defense attorneys look for inconsistencies between different accounts, deviations from standard procedures, and missing documentation that should exist if police followed proper protocols.

Video evidence from body cameras, dash cameras, and surveillance systems often proves crucial in suppression hearings. This footage can contradict officer testimony, reveal constitutional violations not mentioned in reports, or demonstrate that claimed justifications for police actions did not actually exist.

The decision whether to testify at a suppression hearing requires careful consideration. While defendants have the right to testify at suppression hearings without that testimony being used against them at trial on guilt or innocence, strategic considerations may counsel against testifying in certain circumstances.

The Impact of Successful Suppression Motions

When suppression motions succeed, the impact on criminal cases can be dramatic. In OVI cases, suppression of breath test results often eliminates the prosecution's strongest evidence. Suppression of field sobriety tests may leave prosecutors without sufficient proof of impairment. If the initial stop itself is suppressed, all evidence flowing from it becomes inadmissible, often resulting in dismissal.

Even partial success in suppression motions can significantly impact cases. Suppressing some but not all evidence may weaken the prosecution's case enough to facilitate favorable plea negotiations or create reasonable doubt at trial. The mere filing of a strong suppression motion may prompt prosecutors to offer better plea deals rather than risk losing key evidence.

Beyond Individual Cases: The Broader Impact

Suppression motions serve purposes beyond individual cases. They hold law enforcement accountable for constitutional violations, encouraging better training and adherence to legal requirements. When courts consistently suppress evidence obtained through particular types of violations, police departments often modify their practices to ensure compliance.

The appellate decisions resulting from suppression litigation create precedents that protect all citizens' constitutional rights. Today's suppression motion may establish principles that protect countless others from similar violations in the future.

Practical Advice for Those Facing Charges

Those facing criminal charges should document everything about their encounter with police while memories remain fresh. Important details include the reason officers gave for the stop, what questions they asked and how you responded, whether and how they searched your person or vehicle, and any statements about why they were taking particular actions.

Avoid discussing the case on social media or with anyone except your attorney. Statements made to friends or family are not protected by privilege and could potentially harm suppression arguments. Let your attorney handle all communications with prosecutors and law enforcement.

Provide your attorney with any video or audio recordings of the incident, names and contact information for witnesses, and medical records if relevant to the encounter. The more information available, the better equipped your attorney will be to identify and pursue suppression issues.

The Critical Importance of Experienced Representation

Suppression litigation requires deep understanding of constitutional law, evidence rules, and local court practices. Experienced defense attorneys know what issues to look for, how to investigate potential violations, and how to present compelling arguments at suppression hearings.

The complexity of search and seizure law means that constitutional violations are not always obvious. What might seem like routine police work could involve multiple constitutional violations. Skilled attorneys recognize these issues and know how to effectively litigate them.

Conclusion

Suppression motions represent one of the most powerful tools for protecting constitutional rights and defending against criminal charges. They ensure that police cannot benefit from violating constitutional protections, regardless of what evidence they might discover through illegal means. Understanding the suppression process empowers defendants to work effectively with their attorneys in challenging illegal police conduct.

The exclusionary rule and suppression motions serve as essential guardians of constitutional liberty. Without meaningful consequences for violations, constitutional protections would become mere suggestions rather than enforceable rights. By excluding illegally obtained evidence, courts maintain the integrity of the justice system while deterring future constitutional violations. Those facing criminal charges should never underestimate the potential impact of a well-crafted suppression motion in their defense.