Skip to Content
Top
Challenging Evidence Obtained from Illegal Searches

Challenging Evidence Obtained from Illegal Searches

Evidence Seized Illegally Should Not Be Used Against You

Think about what it feels like: one moment you’re going about your life, the next your personal space is invaded and something is taken. Then, to make matters worse, that very item is used against you in court. It feels backwards. It feels unfair. And in many cases, it is.

When police overstep, the harm isn’t only the search itself. It’s the ripple effect, prosecutors leaning on evidence that never should have existed in the first place. Victims describe it as having the system stacked against them twice: first by the illegal intrusion, then by the courtroom.

At Horn Wright, LLP, we believe no one should be punished because law enforcement bent or broke the rules. That’s why challenging tainted evidence is often the first and most important step in protecting your future.

How to File a Motion to Suppress Evidence in New York

In New York, the main legal tool is a motion to suppress, spelled out in Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) §710.20. It gives defendants the right to ask the court to throw out evidence if it was seized through an unlawful search or seizure.

Once filed, the court often holds what’s known as a Mapp hearing, named after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Mapp v. Ohio (1961). That case made the exclusionary rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in state courts, binding on states like New York.

At the hearing, the defense lays out why the search violated either the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 12 of the New York Constitution. Prosecutors try to argue that exceptions applied or that the search was “reasonable.” Ultimately, the judge decides whether the evidence stays or goes.

A police officer and K-9 stand near a patrol car with an open trunk. Text visible on the car reads, "Emergency 9-1-1" and "Police."

Common Defense Strategies That Get Evidence Thrown Out

Suppressing evidence takes precision. Lawyers use strategies built on the Constitution, New York statutes, and decades of case law.

  • No probable cause. If officers searched without a warrant and couldn’t articulate specific facts showing probable cause, suppression is likely.
  • Invalid consent. Courts in New York scrutinize whether consent was truly voluntary. If it was coerced, the evidence doesn’t stand.
  • Overstepping the warrant. Even when police have a warrant, they sometimes search areas not covered by it. Anything seized outside that scope is inadmissible.
  • Pretextual stops. New York courts, relying on People v. De Bour, have limited how officers can escalate stops. If a search came from an unlawful escalation, suppression can follow.

Federal rulings like Riley v. California (2014), which requires warrants for phone searches, also play a role. Together, these defenses dismantle the state’s case piece by piece.

The Role of Judges in Suppression Hearings

Judges in suppression hearings act as both referee and factfinder. They decide credibility, not juries. Did the officer’s testimony line up with the written report? Did body cam video contradict their story? Did they stretch an “exigent circumstance” claim beyond reason?

New York judges often apply state protections more strictly than federal courts. For example, while federal courts have been more lenient with automobile searches, New York courts have narrowed that exception, citing stronger state constitutional guarantees under Article I, Section 12.

When judges find inconsistencies, the case for suppression grows. Their rulings don’t just affect one trial, they also shape how future searches are judged.

Unlike Maine, New York Provides Stronger Suppression Remedies for Defendants

Not every state treats illegally seized evidence the same way. In Maine, courts have allowed broader use of the so-called “good faith” exception, meaning evidence can sometimes come in even when a search technically violated the law.

New York stands firmer. The Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, has repeatedly emphasized that suppression is meant to deter misconduct. Cases also reaffirmed that evidence seized without probable cause must be excluded, no matter how compelling it may seem.

This stronger approach means New Yorkers have more robust remedies. If the search was illegal, the chances are higher that evidence will be suppressed here than in more conservative jurisdictions.

Examples of Cases Where Suppression Led to Case Dismissals

The power of suppression isn’t theoretical, it plays out in real cases.

  • Brooklyn drug case. Officers claimed to smell marijuana before searching a car. Body cam footage later showed no mention of odor until after the search. The judge suppressed the drugs, and the case was dismissed.
  • Bronx weapons charge. Police searched a backpack during a stop without probable cause. Using People v. De Bour, the court found the escalation unlawful and suppressed the weapon.
  • Queens digital evidence case. Officers accessed a phone without a warrant. The court cited both the Fourth Amendment and Riley v. California, throwing out the data and collapsing the prosecution’s case.

Each dismissal shows the suppression remedy has teeth. When applied correctly, it doesn’t just exclude evidence, it can unravel an entire prosecution.

Why Skilled Lawyers Make the Difference in Evidence Challenges

A suppression hearing isn’t a simple paperwork exercise. It’s a battle. Prosecutors defend their evidence fiercely, and police officers usually testify with confidence. Success comes from careful lawyering: challenging timelines, pointing out contradictions, demanding records under CPLR Article 31, and tying everything back to constitutional principles.

Skilled attorneys also know how to argue precedent in plain terms. They don’t just cite Mapp v. Ohio, they explain why those rulings matter to the human being sitting in court that day. They know how to push judges to see not just legal theory but real-world consequences.

Without that mix of technical knowledge and human storytelling, suppression motions often fall flat. With it, they can change the entire outcome of a case.

Horn Wright, LLP, Knows How to Challenge Tainted Evidence

Having evidence used against you that was seized illegally feels like the system is stacked twice over. But the law gives you tools, and the right lawyer knows how to use them. At Horn Wright, LLP, we’ve fought to suppress evidence from unlawful home searches, car stops, and digital seizures. Our civil rights attorneys dig into records, file suppression motions, and challenge every exception police try to claim. If your case is built on tainted evidence, we’ll fight to strip it from the record and hold those responsible accountable.

What Sets Us Apart From The Rest?

Horn Wright, LLP is here to help you get the results you need with a team you can trust.

  • Client-Focused Approach
    We’re a client-centered, results-oriented firm. When you work with us, you can have confidence we’ll put your best interests at the forefront of your case – it’s that simple.
  • Creative & Innovative Solutions

    No two cases are the same, and neither are their solutions. Our attorneys provide creative points of view to yield exemplary results.

  • Experienced Attorneys

    We have a team of trusted and respected attorneys to ensure your case is matched with the best attorney possible.

  • Driven By Justice

    The core of our legal practice is our commitment to obtaining justice for those who have been wronged and need a powerful voice.