Evidence can determine the direction of a criminal case, but how that evidence was obtained can be just as important as what it appears to prove. Police officers and investigators have significant authority to gather evidence during a criminal investigation, but that authority is limited by constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
When law enforcement crosses those limits, a defendant may be able to challenge the evidence through a motion to suppress. In Los Angeles criminal cases, the suppression of evidence can affect everything from the charges prosecutors are able to pursue to the overall strength of the case.
Understanding when a search may be unlawful and what happens when evidence is challenged is an important part of building an effective criminal defense strategy.
Fourth Amendment Protections Against Unreasonable Searches
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It also generally requires search warrants to be supported by probable cause and to identify the place to be searched and the people or items to be seized. California provides similar protections under Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution.
These protections can apply to many different areas of a criminal investigation, including searches of:
- Homes and apartments
- Vehicles
- Cell phones and other electronic devices
- Personal belongings
- Clothing and items carried by an individual
- Certain digital accounts and electronic information
However, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit every warrantless search. Courts instead examine whether a particular search was reasonable under the circumstances and whether law enforcement had a valid legal basis for conducting it.
That distinction becomes especially important when deciding whether evidence collected during a Los Angeles criminal investigation can ultimately be used in court.
When a Search May Become Unlawful
Search and seizure law is highly dependent on the facts surrounding each encounter. A search may be challenged when law enforcement acted without a valid warrant and no recognized exception to the warrant requirement applied.
Common exceptions can include consent, certain searches incident to a lawful arrest, vehicle searches under qualifying circumstances, and searches justified by an emergency or other exigent circumstances. The existence of an exception does not automatically make every search lawful. The scope and circumstances of the search still matter.
For example, a person may consent to officers looking in one particular area without necessarily giving unrestricted permission to search everything they own. Similarly, a lawful arrest can permit certain searches, but it does not automatically give officers unlimited access to every piece of digital information belonging to the person arrested.
A criminal defense attorney reviewing a search will often examine exactly what officers knew at the time, what authority they relied upon, where they searched, what they seized, and whether their actions stayed within the legal limits of that authority.
Search Warrants Can Also Be Challenged
Having a warrant does not necessarily end the analysis.
A search conducted under a warrant may still be challenged if there were significant problems with the warrant or with the way it was executed. California Penal Code Section 1538.5 identifies several grounds for challenging evidence obtained with a warrant, including situations involving insufficient warrants, lack of probable cause, seizure of property outside the warrant’s authorization, or execution of the warrant in a manner that violated constitutional standards.
Search warrants are also required to describe with sufficient particularity what officers are authorized to search for and seize. This requirement is designed to prevent broad, open-ended searches that leave officers with unrestricted discretion.
As a result, an attorney evaluating a Los Angeles search warrant may review both the information used to obtain the warrant and what officers actually did once the warrant was executed.
Cell Phones Receive Significant Privacy Protection
Cell phones have become particularly important in modern criminal investigations. A single device may contain years of text messages, photographs, emails, location information, internet activity, financial records, and other deeply personal information.
Because of the enormous amount of private information stored on modern phones, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Riley v. California that police generally must obtain a warrant before searching the digital contents of a cell phone seized during an arrest. The Court distinguished digital information from ordinary physical objects that may be searched under traditional search-incident-to-arrest rules.
Exceptions may still apply in certain circumstances, but an arrest by itself does not generally authorize officers to search through the contents of a phone.
For defendants in Los Angeles, this can make the circumstances surrounding the seizure and search of a device an important part of the defense investigation.
California Penal Code Section 1538.5 and Motions to Suppress Evidence
California provides a specific procedure for challenging evidence obtained through an allegedly unreasonable search or seizure.
Under California Penal Code Section 1538.5, a defendant may seek to suppress tangible or intangible evidence obtained through an unreasonable search or seizure. The statute permits challenges involving warrantless searches as well as searches performed under warrants.
A suppression motion identifies the evidence being challenged and explains the factual and legal basis for excluding it. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the court may hear testimony, review reports or warrant materials, consider recordings, and evaluate other evidence surrounding the search.
California courts have described Section 1538.5 as the procedure for resolving search and seizure issues before trial. In disputes involving warrantless searches, the prosecution ultimately carries the burden of establishing that the search or seizure was reasonable once the issue has been properly raised.
These hearings can therefore become an important stage of a criminal prosecution.
What Happens When Evidence Is Suppressed?
When a court grants a motion to suppress, the challenged evidence generally cannot be introduced against the defendant in the manner prosecutors originally intended.
The practical impact depends on how important that evidence was to the government’s case.
Suppose a criminal charge depends heavily on drugs, a weapon, digital messages, photographs, or another item discovered during a disputed search. If that evidence is excluded, prosecutors may have substantially less evidence available to prove the charge.
In some cases, prosecutors may still have witnesses, recordings, physical evidence, or other independently obtained information that allows the case to continue. In others, suppression may significantly change the prosecution’s ability to establish one or more charges.
A successful suppression motion therefore does not automatically mean a criminal case will be dismissed. Its importance depends on what was excluded and what admissible evidence remains.
Evidence Discovered Because of an Illegal Search
A search-and-seizure challenge may extend beyond the first piece of evidence officers discovered.
Under what is commonly known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, courts may sometimes exclude evidence that was discovered as a result of an earlier constitutional violation. At the same time, several exceptions can allow evidence to remain admissible when the connection to the unlawful conduct is sufficiently weakened or when the evidence was obtained through a legally independent source.
Because of these rules, determining the consequences of an illegal search may require tracing how investigators obtained later evidence rather than looking only at the initial search.
This can become especially significant in larger Los Angeles criminal investigations involving multiple searches, digital records, witness interviews, or warrants obtained after an initial police encounter.
Early Review of Search and Seizure Issues Matters
Search and seizure questions are often highly fact-specific. Small details can change the legal analysis, including when officers approached a person, whether permission to search was requested, what was said during the encounter, how broad a warrant was, and where particular evidence was found.
Police reports provide one account of those events, but additional information may come from body-worn camera footage, surveillance recordings, dispatch records, photographs, warrant affidavits, witness statements, and other materials.
Reviewing that information early can help identify whether there is a legitimate basis to challenge evidence before a Los Angeles criminal case moves further toward trial.
Los Angeles Criminal Defense and Unlawfully Obtained Evidence
Evidence obtained by police is not automatically admissible simply because officers found it during an investigation. The Constitution places limits on government searches, and California law provides procedures for challenging evidence when those limits may have been violated.
If you are facing criminal charges in Los Angeles and believe evidence was obtained through an unlawful search, Simmons & Wagner can review the circumstances surrounding the investigation and determine what legal challenges may be available.
Contact Simmons & Wagner to discuss your case and learn more about your options under California law.