What Is a Motion to Suppress in Massachusetts?

There are moments in criminal cases when the law pauses, looks backward, and asks a simple question: How did the government get this evidence? A Motion to Suppress is the mechanism that allows that question to be asked. It is one of the oldest tools in the criminal courts, and one of the most important. In Massachusetts, where Article 14 of our Declaration of Rights provides protections even stronger than the federal Constitution, the Motion to Suppress is often the fulcrum on which a case turns.

At its heart, a Motion to Suppress asks a judge to rule that certain evidence was obtained illegally and must be excluded from trial. Evidence can take many forms—a firearm, drugs, DNA, statements to police, the contents of a phone, or even the observations an officer claims to have made during a stop. If the government acquired that evidence in violation of your rights, the court has an obligation to prevent the Commonwealth from using it against you.

The process begins with a written motion. The defense explains what happened: the stop, the search, the arrest, the questioning. We strip the encounter down to its facts, preserving every detail that matters. Then we identify the rule the police violated. Perhaps the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the car. Perhaps the search exceeded the bounds of consent. Perhaps the interrogating officer ignored your request for a lawyer, or pushed past the protections the law places around custodial questioning. Each rule exists to limit government power, and when an officer crosses one, the law gives the court a remedy.

Once the motion is filed, the court schedules a hearing. This is where the real work happens. Unlike trials, which revolve around guilt or innocence, suppression hearings focus almost entirely on the conduct of the police. The officer takes the stand and describes the encounter as he remembers it. The defense then walks through those moments carefully—sometimes gently, sometimes with firm precision—testing the story against the Constitution. We examine the timing, the sequence, the words used, the opportunities for reflection or retreat. The goal is not theatrics. It is clarity. It is to take the frenetic energy of a roadside stop or the compressed anxiety of an interrogation room and replay it slowly, in a place where the rules matter.

The judge then decides whether the police followed the law. If they did, the evidence comes in. If they did not, the evidence is excluded—sometimes in part, sometimes entirely. And because many criminal charges rely heavily on a single piece of contested evidence, the exclusion of that evidence often means the end of the case. Courts do not apologize for this. Suppressing illegally obtained evidence is not a loophole; it is the enforcement of the law itself. The Constitution has no meaning unless courts give force to the limits it sets.

Massachusetts courts apply these limits with particular care. Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights places stricter boundaries on government conduct than the Fourth Amendment. Our courts demand more than vague suspicion before a stop, more than loose reasoning before a search, and more than casual questioning before a waiver of rights. A Motion to Suppress is the vehicle through which those protections are honored.

For defendants, the motion is often the first moment in a case where the playing field feels level. It is a rare instance in the criminal process where the burden shifts—where the Commonwealth must justify what its agents did, step by step, under oath. And it is a reminder that criminal defense is not simply the act of disputing allegations; it is the work of holding the government to the standards it has set for itself.

A Motion to Suppress is, at bottom, an argument about fairness. The government may prosecute, but only within the bounds of the law. When it steps outside those bounds, the courtroom door closes on the evidence it gathered. And for many clients, that closed door is the difference between a conviction and a dismissal, between the weight of uncertainty and the relief of walking out of court unburdened.

If Police Violated Your Rights, the Evidence May Not Stand

If you believe the police stopped, searched, or questioned you illegally, a Motion to Suppress may be the strongest defense you have. We can walk through what happened, identify the legal issues, and fight to exclude evidence that was obtained in violation of your rights.

Call Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP at (508) 897-0001 for a focused, thorough evaluation of your case.