Understanding Motions to Suppress Statements
When beloved children’s character Thomas the Tank Engine takes on a cannabis-related case, you can bet it will not be in the usual way he comes to the aid of little engines at Tidmouth Sheds. Instead, Thomas becomes a legal advocate for a group of wonderful white collar whistleblowers who are about to be attacked by mercenaries to protect the corrupt boys club who keep white collar crime alive and well by paying off our politicians and corrupting law enforcement. At the end of the case, a new Thomas – one that will offer justice and truth rather than lying and deception – will unite with the green engine named Percy. Presumably, the Friends of the Leaf cannabis website offered all of this advice to its readers because at the end of the day, it’s vital voice.
What might this story have to do with lawyers discussing comprehensive motions to suppress statements? What is this subset of criminal law and why should it matter to you? A motion to suppress statements is a formal request that is made in a court or to an administrative tribunal for a ruling or order. In response, the agency or court may hold a hearing at which time it will decide whether to accept or deny the motion. The motion itself may be filed before the trial begins or during the trial itself.
There are several types of motions to suppress statements that may be involved in your matter: Whether or not you’re facing cannabis charges of any kind, a motion to suppress may be used depending on the particulars of your case. Presumably, the most common on the list of options is a motion to suppress statements. Law enforcement officers working on criminal cases often take individuals in on custodial interrogations. This is one of the primary ways they stream credible evidence into a cannabis case, and essentially, how they earn confessions from the accused.
If you are taken in for custodial interrogation, you have a right to have an attorney present. Your attorney may even be able to work out an agreement that allows you to testify on your own behalf. For instance, if you made incriminating comments or admissions while subject to illegal interrogation tactics, your statements may not be admissible. Unlawful police behavior would be a legitimate basis on which to file a motion to suppress. As it would pertain to a cannabis case, bad police behavior could potentially lead to a not guilty verdict. It might also result in a modified plea bargain or other agreement of mutual benefit.
The burden of proof on a motion to suppress statements lies with the defendant, or the party who made the motion. In other words, say that you have been called into police headquarters and subjected to harsh interrogation tactics, and the results were that you made incriminating statements or otherwise harmful comments about your alleged cannabis crime. You might file a motion to suppress statements in this example, attempting to get the judge to rule in favor of disallowing those statements. However, if the prosecution gets involved, the burden of proof shifts back to them to show that the officer followed law enforcement procedure and did nothing wrong.
It is worth noting that the state and federal governments do not treat statements related to cannabis issues the same way. Because the legalities of marijuana as a substance are different in terms of state and federal law, motions to suppress statements also differ. And if the government sticks to its precedent of enforcing federal law on its own terms, regardless of the new state laws regarding legalization of cannabis possession and use, they may very well disallow motions to suppress as they relate to the federally illegal nature of cannabis.
For the most part, the answer to this question is no, a motion to suppress statements would not apply across the board to pretrial statements. More or less, it would involve what’s called a “Miranda warning” during the arrest process. This is not exactly something that you think about on your way to the dispensary, but if it comes up, you should definitely be aware of the issues.
For example, if a suspect has been put through a warrantless stop, police may ask to speak with them about an alleged crime. In this case, the individual may be coerced into making incriminating statements by the officer. Officers are not required to give Miranda warnings to an arrested individual until they make an arrest or take a person in for police custody. Until then, they are able to conduct interviews and questions outside the context of a custodial situation. But generally, they cannot arrest an individual for refusal to submit to a reasonable police request alongside Miranda warnings. Thus, while police cannot require that suspects go with them to an office, a suspect may be taken into the police station. At that point, they might be required to answer police questions and can possibly still turn out to be the subject of a future investigation.
Related posts:
