244 ★★★★★ REVIEWS
contact us phone
menu






Search Suppression Win: A FrizWoods Case Study

Background

Our client faced serious criminal charges after law enforcement seized a firearm from his vehicle during what appeared to be a routine traffic stop. However, a closer inspection revealed significant constitutional violations, including an illegal stop, improper search of the client's person and vehicle, and a flawed attempt to justify the search as an "inventory" search.

Through aggressive litigation and a deep understanding of Fourth Amendment protections, FrizWoods successfully argued for the suppression of all evidence, leading to a full dismissal of the case.

The Challenge

The client was initially approached by law enforcement while legally parked on the shoulder of a roadway. Officers cited minor traffic violations, such as:

  • Failure to depress lighted headlamps while parked (Maryland Transportation Article 22-214(c))
  • Suspended vehicle registration (discovered only after the stop)

Despite the minor nature of these infractions, the officers escalated the situation, leading to the client's detention, search, and eventual seizure of a firearm from his vehicle. The defense identified that the police:

  • Misapplied traffic laws to justify the initial stop
  • Conducted a warrantless and unjustified search of the client's person and vehicle
  • Attempted to disguise the search as an "inventory search" without following proper protocols

Our Strategic Approach

1. Challenging the Legality of the Traffic Stop

  • We filed a Motion to Suppress, arguing that the initial stop of the client's vehicle was pretextual and lacked valid legal grounds.
  • Key arguments included:
    • The cited violation (TR 22-214(c)) did not apply to the client's situation, as his headlights were required while parked on a roadway.
    • The police had no knowledge of the suspended registration at the time of the stop - this information was obtained only after the client was already detained.

2. Exposing the Unlawful Search of the Client's Person

  • After the client exited his vehicle (without displaying threatening behavior), officers tackled and handcuffed him.
  • Officers then emptied the client's pockets, discovering minor personal items.
  • We argued that:
    • The search of the client's person exceeded the scope of a permissible Terry frisk (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)), which only allows for a pat-down for weapons if there is reasonable suspicion.
    • The aggressive approach by officers, combined with their lack of probable cause, rendered the search unconstitutional.

3. Debunking the "Inventory Search" Justification

  • Officers attempted to justify the vehicle search by claiming it was an inventory search in preparation for a vehicle tow.
  • Our review of body-worn camera footage revealed:
    • The decision to search the vehicle occurred before a tow request was even made.
    • The officers entered the vehicle and searched under seats before following any standard towing procedures.
    • The official inventory log was created after the vehicle had already been searched, further invalidating the "inventory search" defense.
  • We cited case law to demonstrate that:
    • An inventory search must follow established procedures.
    • The search cannot serve as a pretext for an investigative search.

4. Applying the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" Doctrine

  • Because the initial stop, search of the client's person, and the vehicle search were all illegal, all evidence -including the seized firearm- was tainted under the Wong Sun v. United States doctrine.
  • The court agreed that the firearm and any evidence derived from the unconstitutional stop were inadmissible.

The Outcome

The court granted our Motion to Suppress, resulting in:

  • Exclusion of all evidence
  • Full dismissal of charges
  • No criminal record for our client

This case not only protected our client's rights but also reinforced the importance of holding law enforcement accountable to constitutional standards.

Why This Case Matters

This case is a prime example of how FrizWoods:

  • Rigorously defends clients' Fourth Amendment rights
  • Uses strategic motions to exclude unlawfully obtained evidence
  • Challenges improper police practices and exposes constitutional violations

Illegal searches are more common than many realize, and without aggressive legal representation, clients risk convictions based on unconstitutional evidence.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

If you've been the victim of an illegal stop or search, FrizWoods Criminal Defense is here to help. We fight to protect your rights and challenge every piece of evidence obtained through unlawful means.

FAQs

Q: What is a "pretextual stop"?

A: A pretextual stop occurs when police use a minor violation as a reason to stop a vehicle but have an unrelated investigatory motive. While technically allowed under Whren v. United States, the underlying search must still comply with constitutional standards.

Q: When can police conduct a vehicle search without a warrant?

A: Police generally need probable cause to search a vehicle without a warrant. Exceptions include valid inventory searches or searches conducted with the driver's consent -but both must meet strict legal requirements.

Q: What is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine?

A: This legal doctrine prevents evidence obtained from an illegal search or seizure from being used in court. If the initial police action was unconstitutional, any evidence that resulted from it is typically inadmissible.

Contact FrizWoods for a free consultation. We fight for your rights and don't back down against unlawful police tactics.