Challenging Illegal Searches Under Federal Drug Laws

In federal drug trafficking cases, a strong motion to suppress can change the whole outcome of the case, whether that means dismissal of charges, weakening the government’s case at trial, or getting a more favorable plea deal. Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, if the government seized drugs, electronic data, communications, or other evidence through an unconstitutional search, the court can exclude that evidence from trial. In drug cases, suppression is often fatal to the Government’s case.

What is a Motion to Suppress Evidence?

A motion to suppress is a written or oral motion asking the court to exclude certain evidence in the case that was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The “exclusionary rule” bars the use of illegally seized evidence in the government’s case-in-chief in court. If the evidence was obtained through a search warrant that was issued by a judge, a defendant can argue that the search warrant was not based on probable cause, the application for the warrant contained misrepresentations, and/or that law enforcement went beyond the scope of the warrant and seized evidence they were not authorized to seize.

In cases involving warrantless searches, such as when a person or their car is searched during a traffic stop, the government has the burden of showing that the search and seizure was lawful and fell under one of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Those exceptions include consent, exigent circumstances, searches incident to arrest, incriminating evidence seen in plain view, the automobile exception (if there is probable cause that a vehicle contains incriminating evidence), and searches in sensitive or unique places like the border or within prisons.

One of the most common arguments is that a search by officers lacked probable cause, especially during traffic stops. Officers cannot search a car without probable cause or continue detaining a driver without reasonable suspicion of a crime. While reasonable suspicion and probable cause are different standards, both are evaluated by looking at the “totality of the circumstances” surrounding the search and seizure. 

Suppression in Federal Drug Cases

Suppression motions are important in federal drug cases because the government frequently relies on evidence obtained from search warrants for homes, cars, stash locations, emails, social media profiles, bank accounts, and telephones; traffic stops that expand into vehicle searches; wiretaps; and border searches. These methods yield physical drugs, cash, ledgers, GPS data, cell‑site records, texts, chat logs, and call detail records that the government uses at trial as evidence of drug trafficking.

Under Katz v. United States, a landmark case, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy in a person’s tangible and intangible property and prohibits certain “trespassory searches” such as attaching a GPS device to a vehicle or tracking their location through cell phone data. A motion to suppress in federal court must first establish that a defendant had a privacy or property interest in the evidence that was seized. This is called “standing.”

Standing and a defendant’s privacy interests are often at issue in cases involving rental cars, information that is given to third parties like vendors and contractors, and property that a defendant uses but does not own. Critically, however, the Supreme Court has held that a defendant still has a privacy interest in places they are renting (like a house or hotel room) and that some information remains private even when it is in the possession of third parties (such as cell phone providers and banks).

In addition to searching physical property, like a residence or a car, electronic searches are becoming more and more common in the age of the internet and cell phones, so there are additional requirements that law enforcement must meet: searching a cell phone incident to arrest now requires a warrant; historical cell‑site location information requires a warrant. 

In traffic stop cases, a pretextual stop is not itself unconstitutional if there is legitimate traffic violation involved, but officers may not prolong a stop to conduct a dog sniff without reasonable suspicion. At the international border, routine searches—including of vehicles—may be conducted without a warrant or probable cause, though forensic searches of digital devices can raise additional issues.

A motion to suppress in federal court will identify the specific violations of the Fourth Amendment–did the officers have probable cause for the search warrant or warrantless search? Did they seize evidence that was unrelated to the purpose of the warrant? Did they have reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or a crime when they pulled the car over and questioned the driver? 

If the court finds that a violation of the Fourth Amendment occurred, suppression of the evidence at trial is warranted unless the government can show an exception. In cases where the evidence unlawfully seized were the drugs themselves, suppression can be fatal to the government’s case. 

Suppression of other evidence can also give the defendant significant advantages at trial or leverage in negotiations. Notably, however, suppression does not apply to sentencing hearings and certain other non-trial proceedings.

Can the government use evidence that was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

In federal court, unlike state court, showing that police officers conducted an unconstitutional search and seized evidence unlawfully does not always mean the evidence must be suppressed. The court may still look at the source of the evidence, its connection to the allegations, and whether the officers conducting the search did so in “good faith.” 

The Supreme Court has held that the exclusionary rule does not apply under certain circumstances, including the good‑faith exception for officers reasonably relying on a warrant later found defective, where there would have been inevitable discovery of the evidence, where the evidence could have come through an independent source, and where the seizure of the evidence is attenuated from the taint of the unlawful search or obtained after intervening circumstances.

The most common argument from the government in these cases is that the good faith exception applies. The exception does not apply, however, if: (1) the application for the search warrant contained knowing or reckless falsehoods essential to showing probable cause, (2) the judge issuing the warrant was not neutral, (3) the application for the search warrant was so bare-bones that the officers’ reliance on it was unreasonable, or (4) the search warrant was facially deficient in particularity, such as the place or type of property to be searched.

Defendants seeking suppression may obtain a Franks hearing by filing a motion to suppress that makes a substantial showing that the application for the warrant intentionally or recklessly contains misrepresentations or omissions that undermine probable cause. 

How do I file a motion to suppress?

Procedure in federal court is governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and local rules. As noted, a defendant must establish they have standing to seek suppression by showing a personal, reasonable expectation of privacy in the place or item searched. They must then generally file a written motion to suppress under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C) by the court’s pretrial‑motion deadline. Failure to raise suppression grounds on time can forfeit them absent good cause.

The motion must identify the search or seizure, the legal violation, and the remedy sought. It should also request an evidentiary hearing, which is not always granted in federal court. The court is more likely to grant a hearing if the motion raises contested issues of fact. Prior to the hearing, the defense can subpoena necessary witnesses and records and attack the government’s witnesses on the stand, locking their testimony in for trial later.  

At the hearing, the defendant has the burden of proving an unlawful violation if there was a search warrant. If the case involves a warrantless search, the government bears the burden to establish a valid exception. 

What happens if evidence is suppressed?

Suppression means the government cannot use the excluded evidence at trial in its case‑in‑chief. If the excluded evidence is the drugs themselves or core evidence linking a defendant to trafficking, dismissal or a better plea offer is common. 

Suppression does not guarantee dismissal where the government can proceed with independent admissible proof (for example, a cooperating witness, untainted documents, or if the evidence could also be obtained from an independent source). 

Our firm litigates suppression issues in federal drug cases nationwide, including warrants, traffic stops, wiretaps, digital device searches, and border searches.

Contact our firm

Our firm has litigated dozens of motions to suppress in drug trafficking cases, obtaining dismissals, suppression, and other successful outcomes. Our firm has a reputation for strong written motions, diligent fact investigations, and elite skill in the courtroom. 

Contact our firm if you or your loved one has been charged with drug conspiracy charges in federal court. We are ready to fight for you.