The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers AVVO Rating 10.0 Superb | Top Attorney Criminal Defense 10 Best 2014-2016 | 3 Years | Client Satisfaction | American Institute of Criminal Law Attorneys WHO'S WHO | Top Professional | Certified 2017 top 100 lawyer ASLA 10 best 2016 client satisfaction| American Institute of personal injury Attorneys
The Kelly Law Firm Law Offices of Kelly & Conte
Call Anytime - Day or Night
610-314-7066 610-314-7066
The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers
AVVO Rating 10.0 Superb | Top Attorney Criminal Defense
Nation's Premier | NACDA | Top Ten Ranking 2014
10 Best 2014 | Client Satisfaction Award | American Institute of Criminal Law Attorneys
2016 top 100 lawyer ASLA
10 best 2016 client satisfaction| American Institute of personal injury Attorneys

Suppression Archives

Suppression Motions stop-and-frisk

The United States Constitution protects the citizens of the United States against unreasonable searches and seizures via Suppression Motions. Although the Fourth Amendment mentions the need for a warrant in order to perform a search, under certain circumstances a warrant is not required. An attorney may file Suppression Motions to try and keep out evidence.  One of these circumstances is regarding the stop-and-frisk law. The stop-and-frisk law,  Miranda Rights under the Fourth Amendment, does not require that a police officer acquires a warrant before performing a stop-and-frisk. By giving police officers the power to stop-and-frisk, they are able to deter crime by catching potential criminals before the commission of a crime has even occurred. The purpose of the stop-and-frisk law is to keep officers safe and to deter crime.

Suppression Motions: seizure

One of the primary issues in Suppression Motions is whether the police action against the defendant constitutes a seizure.  If a seizure occurs, then a court should grant a defendant's suppression motion and exclude evidence seized by the police.  The threshold issue for this Court to determine is whether the encounter rose to the level of a seizure. A seizure has legally occurred when an officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has restrained the liberty of an individual. Id at 623. "To decide whether a seizure has occurred, a court must consider all the circumstances surrounding the encounter to determine whether the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that the person was not free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. Stated differently, we ask whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought he was being restrained if he had been in the defendant's shoes." Important circumstances to consider include, but are not limited to, the following: the number of officers present during the interaction;  Miranda Rights whether the officer informs the citizen they are suspected of criminal activity; the officer's demeanor and tone of voice; the location and timing of the interaction; the visible presence of weapons on the officer; and the questions asked.

Suppression Motions: Police interaction with Defendants

Defendant's may challenge evidence that is seized by the police by filing a suppression motion.  A suppression motion can be used to suppress evidence that is seized as a result of police interaction with Defendants.  If Police interaction with defendants is too aggressive, then evidence should be suppressed.  It is undisputed that Pennsylvania case law recognizes three categories of interaction between police officers and citizens. Consent and the Police  Evidence seized during an arrest might have to be suppressed by the court, depending upon the type of interaction that the court finds took place between the accused and the police. The first type of interaction is a mere encounter, or request for information, which need not be supported by any level of suspicion by the police, however, this also carries no official compulsion for the accused to stop or to respond to the police. The second is an investigative detention, which must be supported by reasonable suspicion as it subjects a suspect to a stop and a period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of an arrest; and (3) arrest or custodial detention, which must be supported by probable cause.

Suppression Issues: Rights of state Parolees on supervision

An interesting Suppression issue under the law is what are the rights of people who are on state parole to be free of search and seizures under the 4th amendment from their parole agents? Miranda Rights  Generally speaking, if the police want to enter someone's home, they must have the consent of the owner of the home or a search warrant permitting them entry into the house in order to search for contraband. (If they do nnot do this then their is a Suppression issue raised whereby the Defendant may have the fruits of the search suppressed).  However, an individual on state parole does not have as much of a privacy right from searches made by his parole agents. And generally, parole agents can enter their parolee's homes and search their homes so long as they satisfy a fairly low legal standard.

Suppression issues: What are Exigent Circumstances?

Suppression of eviidence means that the evidence is not allowed in court.  In search and seizure cases, there is one Suppression issue that arises with great frequency, and that is, when do the police not need a search warrant to enter and search my home. In this blog, we will be exploring various circumstances when the police do not need a search warrant to enter your home.  read about drug crimes Almost all of these instances involve something called exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances are circumstances where there is something going on in the case such that the police are not required to get a search warrant. Examples of this are the destruction of evidence, safety of other people or the police are engaged in a hot pursuit of an accused.

Pennsylvania law regarding suppressing search warrants based on anonymous tips

As stated in previous blogs, Pennsylvania and federal courts disfavor applications for search warrants based on information obtained from anonymous sources.  The reason the Courts disfavor these search warrants is because there is no inherent reliability in information obtained from anonymous sources.  If the police no the person providing the information or the person provides his name and contact information, there is some inherent reliability to that because that person potentially subjects himself to penalties for false report to law enforcement.

United States Supreme Court rules that searches of cell phones incident to arrest are unconstitutional

The United States Supreme Court recently issued a ruling holding that police are NOT permitted to search a person's cell phone incident to an arrest absent a warrant or a separate exigent circumstance.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Overturns Warrant Requirement for Vehicle Searches

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recently overturned hundreds of years of Pennsylvania Constitutional Law with its recent decision regarding the warrant requirement and vehicle searches.

Searches incident to arrests under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions

The United States Supreme Court has held that a search incident to arrest may only include "the arrestee's person and the area 'within his immediate control'-construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence."  That limitation, which continues to define the boundaries of the exception, ensures that the scope of a search incident to arrest is commensurate with its purposes of protecting arresting officers and safeguarding any evidence of the offense of arrest that an arrestee might conceal or destroy.  (noting that searches incident to arrest are reasonable " in order to remove any weapons [the arrestee] might seek to use" and " in order to prevent [the] concealment or destruction" of evidence (emphasis added)). If there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply.

Recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case re: Inventory Search

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that reduces the police's ability to tow vehicles and conduct warrantless inventory searches of the vehicle.  These cases often arise in drug cases.  The United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions require police searches of a person's belongings be conducted pursuant to a warrant.  Over the years, the United States and Pennsylvania Supreme Courts have allowed inventory searches as an exception to the warrant requirement.

Why We Succeed


We prepare every case as if it is going to trial. Our reputation for thorough preparation puts us in a much stronger negotiating position with prosecutors and opposing counsel.

See what our clients are saying...


For more than 15 years, people throughout Chester County and the surrounding area have turned to Law Offices of Kelly & Conte for sound legal advice and aggressive representation.

Learn more about our team...


We will not accept a deal simply for the sake of closing your case. We care about your future, and we pursue every available option in an effort to secure the best possible outcome.

View our case results...
Schedule a Case Evaluation

Schedule a Free Case Evaluation

Bold labels are required.

Please note that First AND/OR Last Name, and Email AND/OR Phone are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Law Offices of Kelly & Conte
213 W Miner Street #3
West Chester, PA 19382

Phone: 610-314-7066
Fax: 610-436-0628
West Chester Law Office Map

Review Us
Back to Top