How DEA Defense Attorneys Use Motions to Suppress Evidence in Drug Cases

How DEA Defense Attorneys Use Motions to Suppress Evidence in Drug Cases

When someone is charged with a federal drug crime by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), one of the most common and effective legal defenses is filing a motion to suppress evidence. DEA defense attorneys will look for any potential violations of a defendant’s constitutional rights during the investigation and arrest. If they can show the evidence was obtained illegally, they can file a motion to have that evidence excluded from trial.

Suppression motions are a critical tool for defense lawyers in federal drug cases. The DEA and other law enforcement agencies have significant resources and investigative powers at their disposal. But this authority is not unlimited – there are strict rules about how they can gather evidence under the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. Savvy defense attorneys will scrutinize the investigation to find any missteps they can challenge with a suppression motion.

Common Grounds for Suppression Motions in DEA Cases

There are several common situations where a DEA defense lawyer may be able to get evidence thrown out by filing a motion to suppress:

• Invalid search warrant – If the search warrant used to search a home, car, or electronic devices was not supported by probable cause, the resulting evidence can potentially be suppressed.
• Warrantless search – Warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable, with few exceptions. Evidence from an unlawful warrantless search is often suppressible.
• Exceeding scope of warrant – If officers seize items not covered by the terms of the warrant, that evidence may be excluded.
• Invalid traffic stop – The police need reasonable suspicion to legally pull someone over. An unlawful traffic stop can lead to suppression of evidence found during the stop.
• Miranda violations – If the police fail to Mirandize a suspect or obtain a voluntary waiver, incriminating statements may be excluded.
• Coerced confession – Confessions obtained through coercive interrogation tactics or torture can be grounds for suppression.

These are just some of the more common ways DEA defense lawyers attack the admissibility of evidence through suppression motions. There are many other potential issues – illegal detentions, consent obtained under duress, improper execution of arrest warrants, etc. The key is carefully examining the case to find any plausible argument that critical evidence was obtained improperly.

When Suppression Motions Are Filed and Argued

Motions to suppress are generally filed early in the case, often before indictment. The defense will request an evidentiary hearing where officers testify about the investigation and arrest. This allows the defense to identify potential issues and lock the officers into a story they can later impeach at trial if necessary.

At the suppression hearing, the defense has the burden to show that the search or seizure violated the defendant’s constitutional rights. If they meet this burden, then the government must prove that the evidence is still admissible under an exception to the exclusionary rule, like the good faith exception or inevitable discovery doctrine. Witness credibility is often crucial.

The judge will issue a written order deciding the motion, either upholding or suppressing the challenged evidence. These orders are closely scrutinized by defense lawyers looking for appealable errors. Even if a motion is denied, the hearing creates a record that can be useful for impeaching officers at trial.

Common Suppression Motion Arguments in DEA Cases

Here are some of the typical arguments DEA defense lawyers will make in motions to suppress:

Lack of Probable Cause for Warrant

Defense attorneys will argue the warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause to search the locations specified. This often focuses on the reliability of informants, corroboration of tips, staleness of information, and sufficiency of the officer’s experience and training. The defense will claim the warrant was essentially based on hunches rather than solid evidence of criminal activity.

Insufficient Basis for Traffic Stop

The defense will argue the DEA agents lacked reasonable suspicion to justify stopping the vehicle based on the totality of circumstances. They will claim it was an unconstitutional “fishing expedition” rather than a stop based on articulable facts indicating criminal activity.

Exceeding Scope of Warrant

The defense will argue officers exceeded the scope of the warrant by seizing items like financial records, computers, and vehicles that were not listed in the warrant. There are limits on officers’ ability to interpret the terms of a warrant.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Even if some evidence is lawfully obtained, the defense will argue other evidence is still subject to suppression as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” If the initial search or arrest was illegal, evidence discovered as a result is often suppressible under this doctrine.

Miranda Violations

The defense will argue the defendant’s statements should be suppressed because he was subjected to custodial interrogation without being advised of his Miranda rights. They will claim any waiver of rights was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Of course, the prosecution will oppose these motions by arguing the officers acted properly and within the scope of the law. But putting the government to its proof on these issues can pay dividends for the defense even if the motion is denied. The hearing creates opportunities to lock witnesses into stories, expose inconsistencies, and gather ammunition for trial.

Benefits of Filing Suppression Motions

There are several potential benefits to filing suppression motions in DEA cases beyond just getting evidence excluded:

• It forces the government to prove the legality of its investigation and arrest practices.
• The defense gets discovery and learns more details about the government’s case.
• Strong suppression issues give the defense leverage in plea negotiations.
• The defense can lock officers into a story they can impeach later if their testimony changes.
• Cross-examining officers highlights flaws in the investigation for judge or jury.
• Any appealable issues preserved can lead to later reversal of conviction.

While suppression motions are not guaranteed to succeed, they serve an important purpose in DEA cases. At minimum, they act as a check on the government’s power and create opportunities to advance the defense’s theory of the case.

Conclusion

Motions to suppress are a vital tool for defense attorneys fighting federal drug charges. Given the DEA’s expansive authority to investigate narcotics offenses, there are often openings to challenge the legality of searches, seizures, interrogations, and arrests. Savvy defense lawyers will scour the record for any plausible basis to argue the government crossed the line constitutionally. Suppression motions not only provide opportunities to exclude prejudicial evidence, but also allow the defense to test the government’s case and gain strategic advantages for trial. While the odds are stacked against defendants in DEA cases, suppression motions are one way skilled advocates can help level the playing field and protect their clients’ rights.

References

Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual

Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual

Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual

Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual

Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual