Suppression Motions in Pennsylvania

Protecting Your Rights Under the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions

Challenging unlawfully obtained evidence is one of the most powerful tools in criminal defense. At the Zuckerman Law Firm, LLC, we vigorously pursue suppression motions in appropriate cases to ensure that our clients’ constitutional rights are upheld. When police overstep constitutional limits during searches, interrogations, or arrests, the evidence they gather may be barred from use in court under the “exclusionary rule.”

Our firm analyzes every case through the lens of federal constitutional protections—the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments—as well as Pennsylvania’s often broader guarantees under Article I, Sections 8 and 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The Constitutional Framework for Suppression

Fourth Amendment – Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

The Fourth Amendment restricts law enforcement from intruding on a person’s privacy without adequate legal justification. Evidence may be suppressed when officers:

  • Conduct a search without a warrant and without a lawful exception

  • Stop or detain someone without reasonable suspicion

  • Issue or execute a warrant lacking probable cause

  • Exceed the scope of a warrant or search authorization

  • Unlawfully seize property, vehicles, or digital devices

Courts may exclude any evidence obtained directly or indirectly from an unconstitutional search—the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.

Fifth Amendment – Self-Incrimination and Miranda Rights

The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves. When police interrogate a person in custody, they must provide Miranda warnings. Suppression may be warranted when:

  • Officers question an arrestee without giving Miranda warnings

  • Police continue interrogation after a suspect invokes the right to remain silent

  • A confession is coerced, involuntary, or the product of threats or promises

  • Statements are obtained through deception or tactics that overbear a suspect’s will

Improperly obtained statements—and any evidence derived from them—can be excluded.

Sixth Amendment – Right to Counsel

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to legal counsel once formal criminal proceedings begin. Suppression issues may arise when:

  • Police deliberately question a represented defendant without counsel

  • Law enforcement arranges for undercover questioning after charges are filed

  • Officers interfere with a defendant’s ability to consult with an attorney

  • Identification procedures occur without counsel when required

Violations of this right can lead to the suppression of statements or identifications.

Pennsylvania Constitutional Protections

Article I, Section 8 – Privacy and Search Protections

Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution is similar to the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, However, Pennsylvania courts frequently provide greater protection than federal law, particularly concerning:

  • Home searches

  • Vehicle stops

  • Digital privacy

  • Informant reliability

  • Warrant scope and particularity

Because of these heightened protections, searches that might pass under federal law may still violate Pennsylvania’s Constitution—creating additional grounds for suppression.

Article I, Section 9 – Due Process and Self-Incrimination

Section 9 safeguards many of the same rights found in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, including:

  • The privilege against self-incrimination

  • The right to counsel

  • Due process protections during police questioning and identification procedures

Pennsylvania courts often apply these protections with a strong emphasis on fairness, voluntariness, and reliability—resulting in broader opportunities to challenge improper interrogations or unconstitutional state action.

Common Issues We Litigate in Suppression Motions

Illegal Traffic Stops and Investigative Detentions

We examine whether officers had reasonable suspicion or probable cause before stopping a vehicle or detaining an individual.

Defective Search Warrants

We challenge warrants based on stale information, unreliable informants, overbroad descriptions, or insufficient probable cause.

Coerced or Unwarned Statements

Our firm scrutinizes interactions between police and our clients to determine whether statements were obtained in violation of Miranda, the Fifth Amendment, or Article I, Section 9.

Improper Identification Procedures

Lineups, photo arrays, and show-ups must meet constitutional standards. Suggestive or unreliable procedures may lead to suppression.

Our Approach to Suppression Litigation

If hired to represent you at our firm’s litigation rates for service, we will analyze body-worn camera footage, dispatch records, police reports, warrants, forensic reports and preliminary hearing transcripts to uncover constitutional flaws. During the process, we will conduct detailed legal research to determine if state and federal case law supports a potential argument for the suppression of evidence.

If there is a meritorious issue, our firm can prepare and file a Motion to Suppress Evidence with the Court of Common Pleas. The court will then schedule a “Suppression Hearing,” which is also referred to as an Omnibus Pretrial Motion hearing. Each county and judge has a different approach to scheduling these hearings. During the suppression hearings, we challenge the credibility of officers, expose inconsistencies, and provide oral and written arguments in support of evidence suppression.

If granted, the court will prohibit the District Attorney’s Office from using illegally obtained evidence to prove their case. In many cases where suppression is granted, the charges are ultimately withdrawn. In some cases, the filing of a Motion to Suppress Evidence may ultimately lead to a more favorable plea offer being extended.

Real Life Examples of Successful Suppression Motions

The Zuckerman Law Firm has successfully filed and litigated various Suppression Motions. Examples include:

  • Com v. C.M. - 2nd Offense DUI: Review of body camera footage revealed that police officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to conduct a traffic stop on a client who was ultimately charged with DUI. Result: Motion granted, evidence suppressed and Commonwealth withdrew all charges without appealing.

  • Com v. J.N. - 2nd Offense DUI: Firm filed Motion to Suppress Evidence, challenging police approach of vehicle as an unlawful traffic stop. Result: Motion granted, evidence suppressed and Commonwealth withdrew all charges without appealing.

  • Com v. D.H. - Identity Theft (F2), Forgery (F2), Possession of Controlled Substance (M), Possession of Paraphernalia (M): Firm reviewed written discovery materials and filed Motion to Suppress Evidence, challenging the legality of a hotel room search. Result: DA’s office withdrew all misdemeanor and felony charges, offering guilty plea to summary disorderly conduct for no further penalty.

  • Com v. R.B. - Possession With Intent to Deliver (F): Firm reviewed written discovery and preliminary hearing transcripts, filing Motion to Disclose Identity of Confidential Information and Motion to Suppress Evidence, challenging the detention and search of the Defendant and his vehicle. Result: Motion granted, all evidence suppressed. DA’s office withdrew all charges without appealing.

  • Com v. J.L. - Carrying Firearm Without a License (F3): Firm filed Motion To Suppress Evidence, challenging inventory search. Motion was likely to be unsuccessful. Result: Received plea offer to M1 offense for probation.

Contact the Zuckerman Law Firm, LLC

If you believe law enforcement violated your constitutional rights in Pennsylvania, please call our office today at 412-447-5580 to receive a confidential consultation.