How to Challenge the Admissibility of Evidence in a Criminal Case
In any criminal case, the admissibility of evidence can determine the outcome. If key evidence was obtained illegally or without proper procedure, it may be excluded from trial. Challenging the admissibility of evidence is a powerful defense tool and one of the first strategies a criminal defense attorney evaluates.
What Does It Mean to Challenge Evidence?
Challenging evidence means asking the court to rule that certain information, objects, or statements should not be presented to the jury or used by the prosecution. This often involves showing that the evidence was obtained in violation of your rights under the U.S. or Washington State Constitution.
Common Types of Evidence That May Be Challenged
- Physical evidence obtained through an unlawful search
- Statements made without proper Miranda warnings
- Identification procedures that were overly suggestive or unreliable
- Surveillance or recordings obtained without legal authority
Motions to Suppress Evidence (CrR 3.6)
In Washington, the most common method to challenge evidence is a motion to suppress under Criminal Rule 3.6 (CrR 3.6). This motion asks the court to exclude specific evidence before trial begins. If granted, the prosecution cannot use the suppressed evidence at trial.
Illegal Search and Seizure – Fourth Amendment Protections
Under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution, people are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. Police typically need a warrant, probable cause, or a valid exception to conduct a search. If they fail to meet these requirements, the evidence obtained may be suppressed.
Examples include:
- Searching a car or home without a warrant or consent
- Prolonging a traffic stop beyond its original purpose
- Using evidence obtained from a GPS tracker or cell phone without a warrant
Challenging Statements and Confessions – Miranda Rights
Under Miranda v. Arizona, any custodial interrogation must be preceded by a warning of rights. If the police fail to properly advise you of your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney, your statements may be excluded. In Washington, a CrR 3.5 hearing is held to determine the admissibility of confessions.
Due Process and Suggestive Identifications
Eyewitness identifications—such as police lineups or photo montages—can also be challenged if they are found to be overly suggestive or unreliable. If law enforcement influenced the witness or failed to use standard procedures, the identification may be ruled inadmissible due to due process violations.
When to Challenge Evidence
Challenging evidence should happen as early as possible in the case. A skilled defense attorney will review discovery, police reports, and body camera footage to identify opportunities for suppression. In many cases, winning a suppression motion can lead to a dismissal or a favorable plea agreement.
Contact the Law Office of Erin Bradley McAleer
At the Law Office of Erin Bradley McAleer, we aggressively defend our clients’ rights and use every available legal tool to challenge improper evidence. If you’re facing criminal charges, contact us today for a free consultation and learn how we can help protect your future.