Motion to Suppress on Appeal

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.

Written by 

Greetings - I am Darren Chaker. I litigated a cutting edge First Amendment case for 7 of its 10 year lifespan. Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 C.A.9 (Cal.),2005, Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1128, 126 S.Ct. 2023, invalidated a statute on First Amendment grounds and overruled the California Supreme Court‘s unanimous decision in People v. Stanistreet, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 633. Soon after Chaker v. Crogan, it was also used to strike down Nevada's analogous statute forcing the legislature to rewrite the law and used as the backbone authority in Gibson v. City of Kirkland, 2009 WL 564703, *2+ (W.D.Wash. Mar 03, 2009). My case is a leading case on viewpoint discrimination. In a recent case, Chaker v. Crogan was used to vindicate people who filed a complaint against police. Those people were arrested and charged with a law Chaker v. Crogan invalidated! They sued for being arrested and charged with an unconstitutional statute, Penal Code 148.6. The federal court denied the City's motion to dismiss and the case settled. See Cuadra v. City of South San Francisco, 2010 WL 55875, *1+ (N.D.Cal. Jan 04, 2010) I love the fight and made cutting edge case law in the end. No doubt without the support of the ACLU (Ramona Ripston, Mark Rosenbaum, Peter Eliasberg, & Dan Tokaji) winning on appeal, and Joshua Rosenkranz assembling a small army of the best attorneys to defeat the California Attorney General's efforts to have the U.S. Supreme Court reverse the Ninth Circuit---this case would not have had a backbone to stand on. The case has been cited over 196 times as authority, and written about extensively. * Police Misconduct: Law and Litigation s 2:28, Denial of First Amendment rights (2009) * Smolla & Nimmer on Freedom of Speech s 3:11, Viewpoint discrimination--Cross-burning reprised: Commonwealth of Virginia v. Black--Heavy presumption against viewpoint discrimination (2010) * Smolla & Nimmer on Freedom of Speech s 10:22.50, Brandenburg v. Ohio: Intent and imminence standard--Bond and Watts decisions--"True threats" (2010) * CHAKER V. CROGAN, 5 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 425, 444+ (2007) My case is active, living and breathing—forever helping people who once felt oppressed.

Leave a Reply