Excluding Illegally Seized Evidence in Court

Having illegally seized evidence excluded from consideration in court is the most important part of some criminal cases. Exclusion of this evidence goes to the heart of your Fourth Amendment right protecting you against unlawful search and seizure.

The exclusionary rule prevents the prosecutors from using illegally obtained evidence against you in court, even if that evidence is incriminating. All evidence used must be relevant, or directly related to the charges against you, and competent, or collected and handled legally. When evidence is not either relevant, competent, or both, it may be excluded. There must be a valid search warrant or a valid exception to the warrant requirement must apply for admission of evidence obtained by search and seizure. Evidence obtained in violation of your Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights also may be excluded.

In DUI cases, chain of custody errors often result in exclusion of evidence. Police and lab technicians must properly document evidence, especially when it changes hands for laboratory analysis or presentation in court. If the chain of custody is broken, the evidence may be inadmissible in court.

Further, you may seek to exclude admissible testimony or evidence if it resulted from or was derived from an illegal search or another violation of the Constitution. This is known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. For example, a defendant who hits a pedestrian with his car, is arrested, and tells police where to find the car after arrest could seek to have the car and its contents deemed inadmissible if he was not read his Miranda rights when arrested.

There are a few exceptions to the exclusionary rule: inevitable discovery, good faith, and independent source. The inevitable discovery exception occurs when the evidence, though illegally seized, would have been discovered if legal means had been used. For example, if police wanted to search a car and were about to obtain a search warrant, but one officer searched the car before the warrant was obtained, a judge might find that the evidence is admissible because a normal search with a warrant would have had the same result.

The independent source exception occurs when some independent source would have produced the evidence if the police had not performed an illegal search. For example, police might illegally search a driver’s cell phone and locate a text stating that the driver planned to drive drunk. If the text’s recipient came to the police station the next day and turned over the text message, the message might be admissible even though it was first obtained illegally. The good faith exception occurs when an officer believes in good faith that he is acting lawfully. Evidence found by police acting pursuant to legally defective search warrants that looked valid on their face is one example.

Seek out a qualified attorney to file a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence on your behalf. Attorneys experienced in filing these motions will be familiar with the law and the various exceptions to the exclusionary rule.

If you need representation in an Oklahoma court for a DUI charge, seek out the attorney who teaches other attorneys and law enforcement about sobriety testing techniques. Clint Patterson, Esq., of Patterson Law Firm, a former Tulsa prosecutor now using his trial experience and expert-level knowledge of DUI science to defend drivers, may be able to challenge gas chromatography testing for you. To schedule a case evaluation, visit Patterson Law Firm online or call Clint’s office at (918) 550-9175.