motion to suppress


Also found in: Wikipedia.

motion to suppress

n. a motion (usually on behalf of a criminal defendant) to disallow certain evidence in an up-coming trial. Example: a confession which the defendant alleges was signed while he was drunk or without the reading of his Miranda rights. Since the motion is made at the threshold of the trial, it is a motion in limine, which is Latin for "at the threshold." (See: motion in limine)

References in periodicals archive ?
Kane County Judge Clint Hull denied the motion to suppress evidence in June 2019, but has since changed courtrooms.
The Beltrami County District Court denied the defendant's motion to suppress all the evidence pertaining to the arrest.
The district court denied his motion to suppress. He appeals, arguing the officer lacked lawful grounds to initiate the traffic stop and arguing the officer prolonged the stop without independent reasonable suspicion for the dog to sniff.
District Court judge correctly denied the defendant's motion to suppress that evidence, as the search and seizure was lawful.
The court could not determine if the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress his statements to police regarding the marijuana found in his backpack and his residence because he failed to include a transcript or an agreed upon statement of facts.
Criminal procedure -- Motion to suppress DNA evidence -- Search warrant
William Boller granted a motion to suppress evidence in the case of Limmia Page, who had been charged with second-degree criminal possession of a weapon.
Where defendant failed to demonstrate that a motion to suppress would have been successful because defendant's initial interaction with police was a mere encounter during which police discovered defendant had outstanding arrest warrants, thereby providing grounds to search defendant incident to arrest, defendant was not entitled to evidentiary hearing.
He describes the importance and limits of Fourth Amendment freedom, the three parts of its law, the growth of decisions, other sources of search and seizure law, and a framework for analyzing a Fourth Amendment question on a motion to suppress in a criminal case; the amendment's historical background and purpose based on the Revolutionary Period from 1761 to 1791; and its substantive law, including the three basic approaches the Supreme Court has used to interpret it and the standing requirement, the unreasonableness requirement, and enforcement.
2 ruling which junked Estrada's motion to suppress the AMLC report.
Chanti did not rule immediately on the motion to suppress the confession, saying she wanted to take more time to review evidence presented by both sides.