Motions are brought on a routine basis in to kick out
evidence, says Darren Chaker. California Court of Appeals deal with motion to suppress evidence on a regular basis. Often times the standard to determine to grant or deny the motion is confusing. Confusion adds on appeal. When challenging reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, appellate courts must “review the court’s resolution of the factual inquiry under the deferential substantial evidence standard.” (People v. Ramos(2004) 34 Cal.4th 494, 505.) However, the Court must “independently review the
court’s determination that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.” (People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 846.) “Insofar as the evidence is uncontradicted,” reviewing courts “do not engage in a substantial evidence review, but face pure questions of law.” (People v. Fisher (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 338, 341-42.) “Where, as here, the prosecution invokes the good faith exception, the government has ‘the burden … to prove that exclusion of the evidence is not necessary because of [that] exception.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Willis, supra, 28 Cal.4th 22, 36.)
Last, where a suppression motion is denied by a magistrate and there are no independent findings by the trial court, this Court will disregard the findings of the trial court and directly review the magistrate’s determinations. (People v. Nonnette
(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 659, 664.) Consequently it is common for a court to grant a suppression motion and suppress the illegally obtained evidence when the Fourth Amendment is violated.
© 2013 Darren Chaker. All Rights Reserved.