By Nathan Cate, Nashville Criminal Defense Attorney | Cate Law
Every criminal case rests on evidence. The drugs found in the car. The confession at the police station. The blood-alcohol result from the breathalyzer. The gun recovered from the closet. Take away the evidence, and the case collapses.
That is what a motion to suppress does. It asks the court to exclude evidence that was obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. When a suppression motion succeeds, the excluded evidence cannot be used at trial. And when the excluded evidence is the foundation of the State’s case, a successful suppression motion often ends the prosecution entirely.
I have filed suppression motions in courts across Middle Tennessee — Davidson County, Williamson County, Rutherford County, Sumner County, and beyond. It is one of the most effective tools in criminal defense, and it is one that most people charged with a crime do not know exists until their lawyer brings it up.
Here is how suppression works in Tennessee, when it applies, and why it matters for your case.
What Is a Motion to Suppress?
A motion to suppress is a formal request to the court asking that specific evidence be excluded from trial because it was obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. The motion is filed before trial under Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 12(b), which requires that motions to suppress evidence be raised before trial or they may be waived.
The constitutional protections at issue in most suppression motions come from three sources:
- The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
- The Fifth Amendment, which protects against compelled self-incrimination
- The Sixth Amendment, which protects the right to counsel
Tennessee’s state constitution, specifically Article I, Section 7, provides parallel search-and-seizure protections that in some cases are interpreted more broadly than the federal Fourth Amendment. This means Tennessee defendants sometimes have stronger suppression arguments under state law than they would under federal precedent alone.
The Legal Standard: Who Has to Prove What
The burden of proof at a suppression hearing is on the government. When the search or seizure was conducted without a warrant, the State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the search was lawful. This is a critical advantage for the defense. The State must justify the officer’s actions — the defendant does not have to prove they were illegal.
When a warrant was obtained, the initial presumption shifts toward the State. Tennessee’s search warrant requirements are codified in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-103 and § 40-6-104, which require that warrants be issued based on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and that they particularly describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized. The defense must show that the warrant was defective — that the affidavit lacked probable cause, that the warrant was overbroad, or that the officer exceeded the scope of the warrant. But even in warrant cases, the factual record at the suppression hearing often reveals problems that undermine the State’s position.
Suppression hearings are evidentiary proceedings. The officer testifies. Body camera footage is played. The defense cross-examines. The judge makes factual findings and legal conclusions. These hearings are among the most important proceedings in a criminal case, and they happen before the jury ever hears a word.
Fourth Amendment Suppression: Searches and Seizures
The vast majority of suppression motions I file involve Fourth Amendment violations. Here are the scenarios I encounter most often in Nashville and Middle Tennessee courts.
Traffic Stop Searches
A traffic stop is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The officer needs reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation to initiate the stop. Once the stop occurs, the officer’s authority is limited to the purpose of the stop — writing the ticket or warning and sending the driver on their way.
Problems arise when officers extend the stop beyond its original purpose. The United States Supreme Court held in Rodriguez v. United States that police cannot extend a traffic stop beyond the time reasonably required to address the violation without independent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In Tennessee, this means an officer who pulls you over for a broken taillight cannot hold you at the roadside for 45 minutes waiting for a drug dog unless the officer develops separate reasonable suspicion during the stop.
I see this pattern regularly in Davidson County: a traffic stop for a minor violation, a long delay, a K-9 unit called to the scene, and a drug charge based on what the dog allegedly indicated. If the timeline shows the stop was extended without justification, the evidence found after the extension is suppressible.
Consent Searches
Officers frequently ask for consent to search a vehicle or a person. “Mind if I take a look?” sounds casual. It is not. Consent must be voluntary, and the State bears the burden of proving that consent was freely given and not the product of coercion, duress, or intimidation.
Common issues with consent searches include:
- The officer told the defendant they would “get a warrant anyway” if consent was refused — implied coercion that can invalidate consent
- The defendant was in handcuffs or the back of a patrol car when consent was requested — the circumstances suggest the person did not feel free to say no
- The scope of the search exceeded what the defendant consented to — consenting to a look inside the car does not authorize tearing apart door panels
- The defendant revoked consent during the search and the officer continued
If consent was not voluntary, everything found during the search is suppressible.
K-9 Alerts
Drug-detection dogs are used extensively in Nashville traffic stops. An alert by a trained K-9 can provide probable cause for a search. But K-9 evidence is not bulletproof.
Suppression challenges to K-9 alerts focus on:
- The dog’s training and certification records. If the dog’s certification is lapsed or the training records show a high false-alert rate, the reliability of the alert is in question.
- The handler’s influence. Studies have shown that K-9 dogs can be inadvertently cued by their handlers. If the officer directed the dog to a specific area of the vehicle or gave subtle signals, the alert may not be a reliable independent indicator.
- The alert itself. K-9 alerts are supposed to be specific trained behaviors — a sit, a scratch at a particular location. If the officer’s testimony about the alert is vague or inconsistent with the body camera footage, the defense has a basis to challenge whether an alert occurred at all.
Cell Phone Searches
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. California established that police generally cannot search a cell phone without a warrant, even during an otherwise lawful arrest. A cell phone contains vast amounts of private information — texts, photos, emails, location data, financial records — and searching it without a warrant is a significant Fourth Amendment violation.
In Tennessee, I have filed suppression motions in cases where officers scrolled through a defendant’s text messages during an arrest, accessed photos on a phone found during a vehicle search, or downloaded data from a phone without obtaining a warrant. The law is clear: a warrant is required. Evidence obtained from a warrantless cell phone search is suppressible.
Home Searches
The Fourth Amendment’s protections are at their strongest inside a person’s home. A warrantless entry into a home is presumptively unreasonable, and the State must demonstrate that an exception to the warrant requirement applies — consent, exigent circumstances, hot pursuit, or plain view.
I have litigated cases where officers entered a home based on claims of exigent circumstances that did not hold up under scrutiny. Smelling marijuana from outside an apartment is treated differently now than it was ten years ago. A neighbor’s noise complaint does not authorize a warrantless entry. The knock-and-talk that turns into a doorway search raises serious Fourth Amendment questions.
Fifth Amendment Suppression: Statements and Confessions
The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination. In the criminal defense context, this most commonly arises through Miranda violations.
Miranda Violations
Under Miranda v. Arizona, a person in custodial interrogation must be advised of their rights — the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the warning that anything they say can be used against them. If the police fail to give Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation, statements obtained during that interrogation are suppressible.
The key issues in Miranda suppression are:
- Was the person in custody? Miranda only applies during custodial interrogation. A voluntary conversation at the scene is not custody. Being handcuffed in the back of a patrol car is. The line between the two is litigated constantly.
- Was there interrogation? Interrogation means express questioning or its functional equivalent — words or actions by the police that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Spontaneous statements made without police questioning are not covered by Miranda.
- Were the warnings given? If the officer skipped Miranda warnings or gave them incompletely, statements obtained afterward are suppressible.
- Did the person invoke their rights? If a defendant says “I want a lawyer” or “I don’t want to talk,” all questioning must stop. Any statements obtained after an invocation are suppressible regardless of what happens next.
I handle drug cases where confessions about the source and ownership of drugs were obtained without Miranda warnings. I handle DUI cases where statements about drinking were elicited during what was functionally custodial interrogation at the roadside. These statements are often the strongest evidence the State has, and suppressing them can fundamentally change the case.
Sixth Amendment Suppression: Right to Counsel
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel at critical stages of the prosecution. Once a defendant has been formally charged and has invoked the right to counsel, police cannot initiate interrogation outside the presence of the attorney.
Suppression under the Sixth Amendment arises when law enforcement contacts a represented defendant directly — at the jail, during transport, through an informant placed in a holding cell — and obtains statements without the attorney present. These statements are suppressible under the Sixth Amendment’s protections.
Additionally, identification procedures — lineups, photo arrays, show-ups — conducted after formal charges without the presence of counsel can be challenged. If a lineup was conducted in a suggestive manner or without the defendant’s attorney present at a stage where the right had attached, the identification can be suppressed.
How a Successful Suppression Motion Changes Your Case
When the court grants a motion to suppress, the excluded evidence cannot be presented to the jury. The practical consequences depend on how central the suppressed evidence was to the State’s case:
- If the suppressed evidence is the only evidence of the crime — the drugs found during an illegal search, the confession obtained without Miranda warnings — the State may be forced to dismiss the case entirely. No evidence means no prosecution.
- If the suppressed evidence is part of a larger body of proof — one of several witnesses, one piece of physical evidence among many — the case continues but the State’s position is weaker. This shifts plea negotiations significantly in the defendant’s favor.
- If the suppression leads to the exclusion of derivative evidence — the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine holds that evidence obtained as a result of an initial constitutional violation is also suppressible. A confession obtained after an illegal arrest can be suppressed, and anything the police found based on that confession can be suppressed as well.
In my experience, a successful suppression motion is the single most impactful pretrial event in a criminal case. I have seen felony drug charges dismissed after the court suppressed the search that found the drugs. I have seen DUI cases collapse after the court suppressed the traffic stop itself. When the evidence goes, the case goes with it.
Filing a Suppression Motion in Tennessee: The Procedure
Under Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 12, suppression motions must be filed before trial. The court will schedule an evidentiary hearing where the State presents testimony — usually the arresting or searching officer — and the defense cross-examines and may present its own evidence.
The hearing is conducted before the judge, not a jury. The judge evaluates credibility, reviews body camera and dashcam footage, applies the legal standards, and issues a ruling. If the motion is denied, the evidence comes in at trial. If the motion is granted, the evidence is excluded.
The decision to file a suppression motion — and how to litigate it — requires a detailed analysis of the facts, the officer’s conduct, the applicable law, and the available evidence. This is work that should be done early in the case, well before any plea negotiations or trial preparation. If you are facing criminal charges in Nashville or Middle Tennessee, review your legal options with an experienced defense attorney who knows how to identify and litigate suppression issues.
Frequently Asked Questions
How often do suppression motions succeed?
There is no published success rate because every case depends on its own facts. But suppression motions are not long shots. Officers make procedural mistakes. Body camera footage contradicts police reports. Consent is obtained under questionable circumstances. When the facts support it, Tennessee courts regularly grant suppression motions. The key is identifying the constitutional violation and presenting the evidence clearly at the hearing.
Can the State appeal a suppression ruling?
Yes. Under Tennessee law, the State has the right to file an interlocutory appeal of a suppression order. This means that if the trial court grants your motion to suppress, the prosecution can appeal that ruling to a higher court before the trial proceeds. This delays the case but does not change the fact that the trial court found a constitutional violation.
What is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine holds that evidence derived from an initial constitutional violation is also excludable. If police conduct an illegal search and find a key, then use that key to open a storage locker containing drugs, the drugs are the “fruit” of the illegal search and are suppressible along with the key. The doctrine prevents the government from benefiting indirectly from constitutional violations.
Does body camera footage help suppression motions?
Body camera footage is one of the most valuable tools in suppression litigation. Officers’ written reports sometimes omit details or present events in a light favorable to the State. Body camera footage shows what happened in real time — the exact words used to request consent, the length of the traffic stop, whether Miranda warnings were given, how the K-9 alert was conducted. In many of my cases, the body camera footage is more useful to the defense than to the prosecution.
Can I file a suppression motion in a misdemeanor case?
Yes. Suppression motions are not limited to felony cases. If your constitutional rights were violated during the investigation of a misdemeanor — an illegal search during a traffic stop that led to a simple possession charge, a Miranda violation during a DUI investigation — you have the same right to file a motion to suppress. The constitutional protections apply regardless of the severity of the charge.
What if my lawyer did not file a suppression motion and I was convicted?
If your trial attorney failed to identify and litigate a viable suppression issue, that failure may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Tennessee courts evaluate ineffective assistance claims under the Strickland standard: the attorney’s performance must have been deficient, and the deficiency must have prejudiced the outcome of the case. If a suppression motion would have succeeded and changed the result, that is a basis for post-conviction relief. This is a complex area of law that requires a thorough review of the trial record.
Facing criminal charges in Nashville and think the evidence was obtained illegally? Call (615) 664-8083 for a free consultation.