The Motion to Suppress

Weaponizing Constitutional Violations to Secure a Case Dismissal.

In the high-stakes arena of Utah criminal litigation, the most powerful strike a defense can make is the motion to suppress. This is not a request for mercy; it is a clinical demand for the exclusion of evidence obtained through the violation of your constitutional rights. When the State relies on a "key piece of evidence"—be it a firearm, a drug stash, or a recorded confession—they are betting their entire case on the legality of the police conduct that secured it. If the foundation of that evidence is built on an unconstitutional search or a coerced statement, the Motion to Suppress acts as a tactical demolition, often forcing the prosecutor to dismiss the case entirely.

Attorney Andrew McAdams is a former felony prosecutor who has spent years defending the "legality" of police searches from the other side. He knows exactly where officers take shortcuts and how they attempt to sanitize their errors in a police report. He understands that the exclusionary rule exists to deter police overreach and that the burden of proving a warrantless search was legal rests entirely on the State. We provide an elite level of criminal defenserepresentation that treats every piece of evidence not as a fact, but as a target for suppression.

The Exclusionary Rule: The "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree"

The core of a suppression motion is the "Exclusionary Rule," a constitutional safeguard that prohibits the State from using evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments. If the initial police contact was illegal, any evidence that flows from that contact is considered "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree." As a former prosecutor, Andrew McAdams knows that once the primary branch of evidence is cut, the rest of the case often falls with it.

We meticulously audit every second of body-cam footage and every line of the officer's affidavit for signs of constitutional rot. If an illegal traffic stop led to a vehicle search, which led to a confession, we move to suppress the stop, the search, and the statement. By isolating the Miranda issues or the lack of reasonable suspicion vs probable cause, we can dismantle a complex violent crime defense case before it ever reaches a jury. We hold the State to a zero-tolerance standard for rights violations.

Fourth Amendment Targets: Search and Seizure Violations

The majority of suppression motions focus on the Fourth Amendment’s protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures." In Utah, the police are generally required to obtain a warrant before they can intrude upon your "reasonable expectation of privacy." If they acted without a warrant, the State must prove that a specific, narrow exception applied—such as "exigent circumstances" or "plain view."

We aggressively file search warrant challenges when the police relied on stale information, unreliable informants, or "overbroad" warrants that authorized a fishing expedition. If the evidence was found in your home or car during a "protective sweep" that exceeded its legal scope, we move to exclude it. This is a cornerstone of our pre-filing defense strategy: if we can show the prosecutor that their star evidence is a constitutional liability, the case may never be filed. We fight to ensure that weapons offenses or drug charges built on illegal tactics are neutralized early.

Fifth Amendment Targets: Statements and Confessions

The Second Pillar of suppression involves your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Police are experts at the "psychology of the interview," often using pressure and deception to extract admissions. However, if you were in "custody" and "interrogated" without being read your rights, your statements—and anything the police found because of those statements—should be suppressed.

We analyze police investigations for signs of "custodial interrogation" where the officer failed to provide the required warnings. Even if the police did read you your rights, we look for evidence that your "waiver" wasn't knowing or voluntary. If an officer continued to question you after you asked for an attorney, they have violated the "bright line" rule. We use these violations to win motions to suppress in cases ranging from theft & property crimes to high-level felonies. Your words can be a weapon, but only if the State followed the rules of engagement.

The Evidentiary Hearing: The Trial Before the Trial

When we file a Motion to Suppress, the judge schedules an "Evidentiary Hearing." This is a high-intensity proceeding where the arresting officer is placed on the stand and subjected to cross-examination. This is not a trial about whether you are "guilty"; it is a trial about whether the officer followed the law.

As a former prosecutor, Andrew McAdams knows exactly how to expose an officer’s "scripted" testimony. We use missing body camera footage, GPS logs, and dispatch records to highlight inconsistencies in the State’s narrative. If we can prove the officer lacked a lawful basis for the search, the judge will issue an order suppressing the evidence. In many drug charges or gun charges cases, this order is the "death warrant" for the prosecution’s case. We win the battle of credibility at the hearing to win the war for your freedom.

Northern Utah Jurisdictional Suppression Trends

Every county in Northern Utah has its own judicial "climate" regarding suppression. A judge in Salt Lake City may view a "stop and frisk" differently than a judge in a more conservative jurisdiction.

• Salt Lake & Summit Counties: These courts have a high volume of complex police surveillance cases. We are experts at challenging the high-tech search tactics common in these urban centers.

• Davis & Weber Counties: We have a deep history of litigating search warrant challenges in Davis County and Weber County, where local task forces often push the boundaries of "consent."

• Utah County: Known for a rigid "law and order" culture, Utah County requires a more technical and forensic presentation of constitutional law to secure a suppression order.

• Box Elder & Cache Counties: In smaller jurisdictions, we use our former-prosecutor authority to ensure that "local custom" doesn't override your state and federal constitutional rights.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does a former prosecutor’s perspective help with a Motion to Suppress?

A former prosecutor knows the "short cuts" that lead to suppressed evidence. Andrew McAdams has seen which search warrants fail under scrutiny and which "confessions" are actually coerced. By knowing the State's internal "legal review" process, we can identify the exact constitutional defect that will force a prosecutor to concede the motion or dismiss the charges.

Will my case be dismissed if the evidence is suppressed?

In many cases, yes. If the suppressed evidence is the "heart" of the case—like the only gun in a weapons prosecution or the only drugs in a distribution case—the State will have no evidence left to present at trial. If they cannot prove the charges without the illegal evidence, they are legally required to dismiss.

What is "Standing" and why does it matter?

To move to suppress evidence, you must have "standing"—meaning the search violated your personal expectation of privacy. For example, you usually have standing to challenge a search of your own phone, but not a search of a phone you threw in a public trash can. We analyze your pre-filing defense options to ensure we can meet this threshold and get the judge to hear our motion.

Can the police use evidence if they made a "good faith" mistake?

In some narrow circumstances, Utah courts allow a "good faith" exception if the police relied on a warrant that they thought was valid. However, this exception has major limits, especially if the officer lied to the judge to get the warrant. We meticulously review search warrant challenges for any sign that the "good faith" claim is a cover-up for a reckless error.

Can I suppress a "voluntary" statement?

Yes, if the statement was obtained through unconstitutional means. For example, if you were kept in a room for 10 hours without food or water until you "voluntarily" confessed, that statement is considered "coerced" and can be suppressed. We use investigation pages to reconstruct the interrogation and prove the statement was involuntary.

What happens if I "consented" to the search?

The State loves to claim that you "consented" to a search, as it bypasses the warrant requirement. However, consent must be "freely and voluntarily given." If the police threatened you, lied about having a warrant, or wouldn't let you leave until you said yes, the "consent" is invalid. We use body-cam footage to prove the "consent" was actually submission to authority.

When is the best time to file a Motion to Suppress?

Under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 12, most motions to suppress must be filed at least 7 days before trial, but in practice, they are often litigated months earlier. We prioritize filing these motions as part of our pre-filing defense or immediately after discovery to put the prosecutor on notice that their case is in jeopardy.

Secure Your Victory with Elite Advocacy

A Motion to Suppress is the ultimate defensive weapon. It is the moment where you take the State's evidence and turn it against them. To win this battle, you need a lawyer who understands the law of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and has the guts to go toe-to-toe with the police in an evidentiary hearing.

Andrew McAdams provides the sophisticated, high-stakes defense that your future demands. We don't just "process" your case; we fight to dismantle the State's power at its source. From the initial arrest to the final dismissal, we are the shield between you and a system that is often more interested in a conviction than the Constitution.

Call or click below to schedule your confidential consultation.