The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers AVVO Rating 10.0 Superb | Top Attorney Criminal Defense 10 Best 2014 | 4 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 Top 10 Attorneys American Jurist Institute 2017 American Jurist Institute Top 10 Attorneys Personal Injury Attorney | Top 10 Attorney And Practice Magazines | 2017 Criminal Defense Attorney | Top 10 Attorney And Practice Magazines | 2019 America's top 100 Criminal Defense Attorneys | 2017 | top 100
Law Offices of Kelly & Conte Law Offices of Kelly & Conte
Call Anytime - Day or Night
610-314-7066 610-314-7066
Visa | Mastercard | American Express | Discover Network
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 | 4 years Client Satisfaction | American Institute of Criminal Law Attorneys
2016 top 100 lawyer ASLA
10 best 2016 client satisfaction| American Institute of personal injury Attorneys
American Jurist Institute Top 10 Attorneys
Top 10 Attorneys American Jurist Institute 2017

Posts tagged "Suppression"

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 not 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 evidence 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 Consent and Police Interaction

The general rule under Pennsylvania law is that police officers must obtain a warrant prior to searching any area or item.  An exception to the general rule occurs when the owner of the place or item to be searched consents to the police officer searching without a warrant.  In those cases, the search is not unlawful if the consent was validly given.

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.

Police use of heat-seeking devices and Constitutional Implications

In a fairly recent United States Supreme Court case, the Court had to resolve the issue of whether the police use of heat-seeking devices to detect whether the owner of a home was growing marijuana inside his residence constituted a search for Constitutional purposes.

Use of Drug-Sniffing Dogs and its Constitutional Implications

The United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.  In a number of cases, the United States Supreme Court has had to address the issues of whether the police's use of a drug-sniffing dog constitutes a search and, if so, whether that search is unreasonable.

Pennsylvania adopts the Federal standard for the warrantless search of automobiles

A new Pennsylvania Supreme Court case has ruled on the proper standard to analyze warrantless searches of an automobile.  In this case, the PA Supreme Court has held that the proper standard is the standard the federal courts apply: namely if a police officer has probable cause to believe that an automobile may contain contraband, the probable cause plus the fact that an automobile is readily mobile, creates 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 Your Free Consultation

Schedule a Free Case Evaluation

Bold labels 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.


West Chester Office
126 W Miner St #1
West Chester, PA 19382

Phone: 610-314-7066
Fax: 610-344-7585
Map & Directions

Pottstown Office
934 E High St #2
Pottstown, PA 19464

Phone: 610-314-7066
Fax: 610-344-7585
Map & Directions

Kennett Square Office
110 East State Street
Suite 305
Kennett Square, PA 19348

Phone: 610-314-7066
Phone: 610-422-7041
Fax: 610-344-7585
Map & Directions