Illegal Search and Seizure: Top Defense Against NYC Drug Charges

Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group, a second-generation criminal defense firm managed by Todd Spodek, with over 50 years of combined experience defending illegal search cases throughout New York. Suppression motions win drug cases. Police violate your Fourth Amendment rights during searches, we file motions under CPL §710.20 proving those violations, courts exclude the evidence, and prosecutors either dismiss charges or offer deals worth taking.

Fourth Amendment Requirements

The Fourth Amendment requires warrants before searches. Warrants need probable cause. Neutral magistrates issue them, not police. Warrants must describe with particularity the places searched and items seized.

That’s what the Constitution requires. Reality looks different. Police enter apartments without warrants claiming they smell drugs. They pull over cars for broken taillights, claim marijuana odor, search without consent. Each violation creates an opportunity to suppress evidence.

New York Courts Enforce Fourth Amendment Rights

New York enforces search protections more aggressively than most states. Defense attorneys file CPL §710.20 motions challenging illegal searches. Judges grant them when police overstep. The Supreme Court decided Payton v. New York in 1980 prohibiting warrantless home entries. Prosecutors must prove exigent circumstances actually existed, not claims made up later in reports.

What Makes a Search Illegal

Warrantless Searches Without Valid Exceptions

Courts presume warrantless searches are unreasonable. That means police carry the burden of proving a valid exception applied to justify searching without a warrant. Five main exceptions exist:

Exception	What Police Must Prove	How We Challenge It
Consent	You voluntarily consented to the search	Consent was coerced, implied authority, you didn’t know you could refuse
Exigent Circumstances	Emergency required immediate action	No actual emergency existed, police had time to get a warrant
Search Incident to Arrest	Lawful arrest occurred, search limited to immediate control	Arrest was unlawful, search exceeded areas within your reach
Automobile Exception	Probable cause existed that vehicle contained contraband	No probable cause, stop was pretextual
Plain View	Police lawfully positioned, criminality immediately apparent	Police weren’t lawfully there, manipulated items to see contraband

Police claim one of these exceptions after conducting warrantless searches. Did you really consent when police implied you had no choice? Did exigent circumstances truly exist when police stood outside your door for fifteen minutes before entering? Was probable cause present when police claimed marijuana odor in 2025, knowing adults can legally possess up to 3 ounces? Prosecutors who can’t prove valid exceptions at suppression hearings lose their evidence.

Defective Warrants

Police obtaining a warrant doesn’t make a search automatically legal. Applications must establish probable cause with specific facts. False statements in affidavits invalidate warrants. Stale information weeks or months old doesn’t establish current probable cause. A warrant authorizing bedroom searches for cocaine doesn’t give police license to search your garage, car, or basement. Items not described in warrants can’t be seized unless in plain view during lawful searches.

The Exclusionary Rule and Suppression

Police violating Fourth Amendment rights trigger the exclusionary rule. Courts exclude illegally obtained evidence from trial. Drug cases depend entirely on physical evidence. Without drugs, there’s no case to prosecute.

How Suppression Motions Work

CPL §710.20 motions shift the burden to prosecutors. Courts hold suppression hearings where police testify. Cross-examination exposes contradictions between reports and testimony. Did they have probable cause? Was consent voluntary or coerced? Did exigent circumstances exist or did police manufacture urgency? If prosecutors can’t prove the search was lawful, judges suppress evidence. Case over.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine extends suppression to derivative evidence. Police illegally search your car and find your phone. They search the phone without a warrant and find text messages about drug deals. They use those texts to get a warrant for your apartment where they find a kilogram of cocaine. All of it gets suppressed. The illegal car search is the poisonous tree. Everything that flows from that violation is fruit that must be excluded.

Narrow Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule

Exception	When Prosecutors Can Use It
Good Faith	Police reasonably relied on a warrant they believed was valid
Inevitable Discovery	Evidence would have been found through independent lawful investigation
Independent Source	Evidence came from a source completely unrelated to the illegal search
Attenuation	Link between illegal search and evidence became so weak suppression isn’t warranted

These exceptions are narrow and prosecutors bear the burden of proving they apply. Most illegal searches still result in suppression even when prosecutors argue these exceptions.

Common Fourth Amendment Violations in Drug Cases

Pretextual Traffic Stops

Police follow you until you commit some minor traffic violation. Broken taillight. Failure to signal. They pull you over supposedly for that infraction, but their real goal is investigating drugs. You refuse a search request. They claim marijuana smell and search anyway.

Did police actually smell marijuana? Does marijuana odor establish probable cause in 2025 when adults over 21 can legally possess up to 3 ounces? Odor doesn’t prove illegal possession anymore. It’s equally consistent with legal possession. These attacks work because police routinely lie about smelling marijuana.

Warrantless Apartment Entries

Police knock investigating drug complaints. You open the door partway. They push inside without consent, without warrants, claiming plain view or narcotic odor required immediate entry. This violates Payton. Seeing something through a door might give probable cause to get a warrant, not enter without one.

Coerced Consent

“Do you mind if I search your car?” Most people don’t realize they can say no. Some people think refusing will make them look guilty. Police exploit this confusion. They claim you consented when you felt pressured into allowing a search you didn’t want.

Consent must be voluntary. It can’t be the product of coercion, deception, or submission to a claim of lawful authority. When police tell you they’ll get a warrant if you don’t consent, that threat invalidates your consent. Ambiguous interactions where it’s unclear whether you actually agreed don’t establish voluntary consent.

The Marijuana Odor Problem

Police claim marijuana smell gives them probable cause to search. But New York legalized marijuana possession for adults 21 and over in amounts up to 3 ounces. Odor doesn’t prove illegal possession anymore. Courts split on whether marijuana odor alone establishes probable cause after legalization. Some courts still allow it. Others recognize that legalization undermines the inference that marijuana odor indicates criminal activity.

Searches Exceeding Warrant Scope

Police get a warrant to search your bedroom for cocaine. They search your entire house instead. Living room. Kitchen. Garage. Basement. Cars parked outside. The warrant authorized a bedroom search. Searching other areas exceeds the scope.

Or police arrest you on an outstanding traffic warrant and search your entire car claiming search incident to arrest. Searches incident to arrest are limited to areas within your immediate control where you might grab weapons or destroy evidence. If you’re handcuffed in the back of a police car, your trunk isn’t within your immediate control. Searching it violates the Fourth Amendment.

Why Suppression Works in Drug Cases

Drug cases live or die on physical evidence. Prosecutors need the actual drugs to prove possession charges. Without the narcotics, the case collapses.

The exclusionary rule prohibits prosecutors from even mentioning suppressed evidence at trial. When suppression motions succeed, the drugs disappear entirely. Prosecutors must dismiss charges or reduce them to offenses they can prove without the suppressed evidence.

Police violate Fourth Amendment rights constantly because they’re working under time pressure and take shortcuts. They claim exigent circumstances that didn’t exist. They exceed warrant scope hoping to find additional evidence. Every violation creates an opportunity for suppression. New York courts actually enforce Fourth Amendment protections, making New York unusually favorable territory for defendants challenging illegal searches.

What Spodek Law Group Does

Immediate Investigation

The moment you’re arrested, we start investigating. Police reports, warrant applications, bodycam footage, dashcam recordings – all of it goes under review. Witnesses who saw what actually happened provide their accounts. Fourth Amendment violations surface before prosecutors can construct narratives justifying questionable searches.

Detailed Suppression Motions

Our CPL §710.20 motions prove illegal searches with specific facts, controlling case law, and documentary evidence. Prosecutors must defend warrantless searches, defective warrant applications, coerced consent, and searches that exceeded authorized scope.

Aggressive Cross-Examination at Hearings

Suppression hearings are where police credibility breaks down. Did they really see drugs in plain view before entering your apartment? Did they actually smell marijuana or are they claiming that now to justify a search? Did you consent the way they described or did they threaten to get a warrant if you refused? Contradictions between police reports written the day of the search and testimony given months later surface under cross-examination.

Creating Leverage

Suppression motions create enormous leverage even when judges don’t exclude all evidence. Prosecutors facing serious suppression risks offer significantly better plea deals. They reduce felonies to misdemeanors. They recommend probation instead of prison. They sometimes dismiss charges entirely when suppression leaves them with no case.

At Spodek Law Group, we hold police accountable for Fourth Amendment violations. You can reach us 24/7 at our offices throughout NYC and Long Island. When police violate your constitutional rights during searches, suppression motions are how we fight back and win your case.