Prosecutors need relatively convincing evidence to justify serious criminal charges. They have a burden of proof when they take a case to trial. If the prosecutor can’t convince the courts beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific defendant committed a particular crime, the defendant can avoid a conviction.
Police officers looking to secure evidence of criminal activity sometimes go too far and either break the law or violate the rights of individual suspects. Police officers generally need permission, probable cause or a warrant to justify a search. In cases where defendants can reasonably claim that a search was illegal, a defense attorney could help them address ill-gotten evidence.
Evidence suppression is a common defense tactic
The Fourth Amendment specifically protects people in the United States from unreasonable searches and property seizures. The exclusionary rule is where the proverbial wheel hits the road after an illegal search.
A defense attorney who can show the courts that police officers conducted an inappropriate search can suppress any evidence gathered through that search. If police officers conducted a traffic stop based on racial profiling and not probable cause, for example, any narcotics found in the vehicle or evidence of drunk driving may not be admissible during a criminal trial.
The attorney can ask the courts to exclude or suppress that evidence due to the violation of their client’s rights. Similar rules also apply in scenarios where police officers conduct inappropriate questioning after violating an individual’s Miranda rights.
Discussing what could constitute police officer misconduct with a defense attorney can help people identify realistic criminal defense strategies. Evidence suppression can lead to the dismissal of charges in some cases or make it much easier to raise a reasonable doubt.