K.S.A. » Chapter 22
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 22-3216 (2026)

Motion to suppress illegally seized evidence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

22-3216. Motion to suppress illegally seized evidence. (1) Prior to the trial a defendant aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move for the return of property and to suppress as evidence anything so obtained.

(2) The motion shall be in writing and state facts showing wherein the search and seizure were unlawful. The judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion and the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful shall be on the prosecution. If the motion is granted then at the final conclusion of the case, the court shall order the suppressed evidence restored to the party entitled thereto, unless it is otherwise subject to lawful detention.

(3) The motion shall be made before trial, in the court having jurisdiction to try the case, unless opportunity therefor did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the ground for the motion, but the court in its discretion may entertain the motion at the trial.

(4) A motion to suppress illegally seized evidence may be made before or during a preliminary examination. If the motion is granted the suppressed evidence shall be held subject to further order of the magistrate. If the defendant is bound over for trial, the suppressed evidence shall thereupon become subject to the orders of the district court. If the defendant is not bound over and if no further proceedings are instituted on the particular charge or involving the particular suppressed evidence within ninety (90) days after the granting of the order, then the magistrate shall order the suppressed evidence restored to the party entitled thereto, unless it is otherwise subject to lawful detention.

History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3216; L. 1971, ch. 114, § 5; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 97 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: State v. Robinson, 363 P.3d 875 (Kan. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Robinson, 363 P.3d 875 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 6× “Neither the exclusionary rule, applicable to unconstitutional searches or seizures, nor the statutory provision for suppressing illegally seized evidence, K.S.A. 22-3216, applied because officers did not conduct an illegal search or seizure.”
State v. Boggess, 425 P.3d 324 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 4× “Instead, the State contends, as the driver of the vehicle, Motley possessed apparent authority to consent.”
State v. Estrada-Vital, 356 P.3d 1058 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 4× “That burden is codified in K.S.A. 22-3216(2), which provides that, at a hearing upon a defendant’s written motion to suppress evidence, “the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful shall be on the prosecution.”
State v. Smith, 268 P.3d 1206 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 9× “Accordingly, we conclude that Smith is not entitled to the relief contemplated in K.S.A. 22-3216, which governs motions to suppress, and that the State did not have the burden to lay a foundation for the admission of the results of the breath test at the suppression hearing.”
State v. Lowery, 420 P.3d 456 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 22-3216(2); State v. Gray, 306 Kan.”
State v. Guein, 444 P.3d 340 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 2× “22-3215(4); K.S.A. 22-3216(2). Issue 1: Was the pre-Miranda statement Guein made surrounding the initial pat-down of him admissible as evidence? Guein argues his statements made surrounding his pat-down, e.”
State v. Kelly, 285 P.3d 1026 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 4× “” In considering the motion to suppress illegally seized evidence, the “judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion.”
State v. Schooler, 419 P.3d 1164 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 22-3216(2); State v. Gray, 306 Kan.”
State v. Holman, 284 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 2× “” Moreover, K.S.A. 22-3216(2) directs that the “judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion.”
State v. Vrabel, 347 P.3d 201 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 3× “That motion to suppress illegally seized property would have been governed by K.S.A. 22-3216, which says in subsection (1): “Prior to the trial a defendant aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move for the return of property and to suppress as evidence anything so…”
State v. Holmes, 102 P.3d 406 (Kan. 2004). “[K.S.A. 22-3216] authorizes reentertainment of the motion in the court’s discretion.”
State v. Buckner, 574 P.2d 918 (Kan. 1977). · cites it 2× “The court erred in overruling defendant's motion, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3216, to suppress as evidence certain hair samples.”
State v. Jimenez, 420 P.3d 464 (Kan. 2018). “K.S.A. 22-3216(2) ; see also State v. Gray , 306 Kan.”
State v. Cash, 483 P.3d 1047 (Kan. 2021). “K.S.A. 22-3216(2). When a law enforcement officer conducts a routine traffic stop on a public roadway, a seizure of the driver occurs within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.”
State v. Hubbard, 430 P.3d 956 (Kan. 2018). “K.S.A. 22-3216(2) ; see also State v. Gray , 306 Kan.”
State v. Regelman, 430 P.3d 946 (Kan. 2018). “K.S.A. 22-3216(2) ; *952 State v. Gray , 306 Kan.”
State v. Cheeks, 908 P.2d 175 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 22-3216. The motion must be in writing and state facts showing that the search and seizure were unlawful.”
State v. Martin, 179 P.3d 457 (Kan. 2008). “” Pointedly, however, the State begins by reciting the provisions of K.S.A. 22-3216(2), which specifically provides that “the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful shall be on the prosecution.”
State v. Hai That Ton, 422 P.3d 678 (Kan. 2018). “That burden is codified in K.S.A. 22-3216(2), which provides that, at a hearing upon a defendant's written motion to suppress evidence, 'the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful shall be on the prosecution.”
State v. McCloud, 891 P.2d 324 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 2× “The burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful is on the prosecution. The motion shall be made before trial, unless opportunity therefor did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the ground for the motion.”
State v. Sullivan & Sullivan, 578 P.2d 1108 (Kan. 1978). “) We note in the present case the witness to the seizure was not endorsed on the information and no motion to suppress was made before trial as required by K.S.A. 22-3216(3); however, the effect of these matters will not be discussed since such procedural matters may be taken…”
State v. Newman, 680 P.2d 257 (Kan. 1984). “22-3215 which authorizes a pretrial motion to “suppress” a confession or admission, and K.S.A. 22-3216 which authorizes a pretrial motion to “suppress” illegally seized evidence.”
State v. Bieker, 132 P.3d 478 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “[K.S.A. 22-3216] authorizes reentertainment of the motion in the court’s discretion.”
State v. Douglas, 441 P.3d 1050 (Kan. 2019). “See K.S.A. 22-3216(2) ; State v. Daniel , 291 Kan.”
– State v. Chavez-Majors –, 454 P.3d 600 (Kan. 2019). “3d 1058 (2015); K.S.A. 22-3216. A blood draw is a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.”
State v. Riedel, 752 P.2d 115 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 2× “That statute generally requires such a motion to be made before trial, but gives discretion to the court to entertain the motion at trial.”
State v. Boling, 617 P.2d 102 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “22-3215 authorizes a pretrial motion to “suppress” a confession or admission; K.S.A. 22-3216 authorizes a pretrial motion to “suppress” illegally seized evidence.”
State v. Coe, 574 P.2d 929 (Kan. 1977). “The appellant voluntarily accompanied Agent Humphrey to the Emporia Police Department.”
State v. Wickliffe, 826 P.2d 522 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 22-3216 requires that any party seeking to have evidence suppressed must file a written motion before the commencement of trial.”
State v. Dunn, 662 P.2d 1286 (Kan. 1983). “K.S.A. 22-3216(2); State v. Morgan, 222 Kan.”
State v. Morlock, 190 P.3d 1002 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “The State argues that even if the encounter did not become voluntary, Cocking had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to extend the duration of the traffic stop.”
State v. Platten, 594 P.2d 201 (Kan. 1979). “In our opinion the language “prior to commencement of trial” means that at any stage of the proceedings before the actual start of the trial, an interlocutory appeal may be taken from any order of the court quashing a warrant or a search warrant, suppressing evidence or…”
State v. Grace, Jr., 17 P.3d 951 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “See K.S.A. 22-3216(2); State v. Houze, 23 Kan.”
State v. Griffin, 787 P.2d 701 (Kan. 1990). “22-3215 authorizes a pretrial motion to suppress a confession or admission; K.S.A. 22-3216 authorizes a pretrial motion to suppress illegally seized evidence.”
State v. Olson, 726 P.2d 1347 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). “In Jackson , the Supreme Court concluded, under K.S.A. 22-3216, the trial court could reentertain an earlier motion to suppress which had been denied.”
State v. Fortune, 689 P.2d 1196 (Kan. 1984). “Defendant filed a timely motion pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3216 to suppress all physical evidence found in the trunk of the defendant’s vehicle.”
State v. Harder, 650 P.2d 724 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Defendant raises three sub-points within this issue: (a) Whether the officers conducted an illegal search by shining their flashlights into the dark truck without probable cause; (b) whether the warrantless search of the toolbox within which marijuana was hidden was illegal; and…”
State v. Roudybush, 686 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1984). “Prior to trial defendant moved the court, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3216(3), for leave to develop any additional Fourth Amendment violations perceived during the course of the trial.”
State v. Williams, 623 P.2d 1334 (Kan. 1981). “) “The burden is on the prosecution to show a search and seizure was lawful and supported by probable cause (K.S.A. 22-3216[2]; State v. Youngblood, 220 Kan.”
State v. Lutz, 474 P.3d 1258 (Kan. 2020). “K.S.A. 22-3216(2). Appellate courts employ a two-part process when reviewing a district court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence.”
State v. Nicholson, 590 P.2d 1069 (Kan. 1979).
State v. Smith, 476 P.3d 847 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Davis, 78 P.3d 474 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Evans, 360 P.3d 1086 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2×
City of Dodge City v. Hadley, 936 P.2d 1347 (Kan. 1997).
State v. Daly, 789 P.2d 1203 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990).
State v. Wilson, 39 P.3d 668 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Rice, 955 P.2d 1258 (Kan. 1998).
State v. Chilson, 165 P.3d 304 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Gray, 360 P.3d 472 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “K.S.A. 22-3216(1). As Gray notes, a traffic stop is a seizure.”
State v. Brown, 579 P.2d 729 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).
State v. Whitehurst, 772 P.2d 1251 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Phillips, 315 P.3d 887 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Manwarren, 440 P.3d 606 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Thompson (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 18×
State v. Dailey, 498 P.2d 614 (Kan. 1972).
State v. Whitehead, 622 P.2d 665 (Kan. 1981). · cites it 2×
State v. Gray (Kan. 2017). · cites it 16× “S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-4606 et seq. 2. A district judge considering a motion to suppress based on an alleged violation of Kansas' biased-based policing statutes, K.”
State v. Anderson (Kan. 2026). · cites it 16×
In re J.O., 422 P.3d 1158 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 4×
State v. Thompson, 138 P.3d 398 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2×
State v. Gordon, 559 P.2d 312 (Kan. 1977).
City of Salina v. Martin, 849 P.2d 1010 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Goodro, 506 P.3d 918 (Kan. 2022).
State v. Myers, 475 P.3d 1256 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2×
State v. Arrizabalaga, 485 P.3d 634 (Kan. 2021).
State v. Gill (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6×
State v. Jeffrey (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6×
State v. Steen, 13 P.3d 922 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Stuckey (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4×
State v. Salazar, 431 P.3d 312 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Daniel, 242 P.3d 1186 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 2×
State v. Whiteford (Kan. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3×
State v. Bennett, 892 P.2d 522 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Sims (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2×
State v. Harbacek (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2×
State v. Kihonge (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2×
State v. Anderson (Kan. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2×
State v. Dixon (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2×
State v. Chapman (Kan. 2016).
State v. Cleverly (Kan. 2016).
State v. Glover (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Carr (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Tonn (Kan. 2018).
State v. Homolka (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Shimer (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Paegle (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Beddingfield (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Cupp (Kan. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Wilson (Kan. Ct. App. 2023).
Lim v. Dvorak (D. Kan. 2020).
State v. Baez (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Churchill (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Hogue (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Carter (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Pennington (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Soehner (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 22-3216(1) — 10 cases
State v. Robinson, 363 P.3d 875 (Kan. 2015). “Neither the exclusionary rule, applicable to unconstitutional searches or seizures, nor the statutory provision for suppressing illegally seized evidence, K.S.A. 22-3216, applied because officers did not conduct an illegal search or seizure.”
State v. McCloud, 891 P.2d 324 (Kan. 1995). “The burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful is on the prosecution. The motion shall be made before trial, unless opportunity therefor did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the ground for the motion.”
State v. Smith, 268 P.3d 1206 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “Accordingly, we conclude that Smith is not entitled to the relief contemplated in K.S.A. 22-3216, which governs motions to suppress, and that the State did not have the burden to lay a foundation for the admission of the results of the breath test at the suppression hearing.”
State v. Gray, 360 P.3d 472 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). “K.S.A. 22-3216(1). As Gray notes, a traffic stop is a seizure.”
State v. Gray (Kan. 2017). “S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-4606 et seq. 2. A district judge considering a motion to suppress based on an alleged violation of Kansas' biased-based policing statutes, K.”
State v. Gill (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
In re J.O., 422 P.3d 1158 (Kan. 2018).
State v. Daniel, 242 P.3d 1186 (Kan. 2010).
State v. Jeffrey (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Harbacek (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 22-3216(2) — 64 cases
State v. Estrada-Vital, 356 P.3d 1058 (Kan. 2015). “That burden is codified in K.S.A. 22-3216(2), which provides that, at a hearing upon a defendant’s written motion to suppress evidence, “the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful shall be on the prosecution.”
State v. Lowery, 420 P.3d 456 (Kan. 2018). “K.S.A. 22-3216(2); State v. Gray, 306 Kan.”
State v. Guein, 444 P.3d 340 (Kan. 2019). “22-3215(4); K.S.A. 22-3216(2). Issue 1: Was the pre-Miranda statement Guein made surrounding the initial pat-down of him admissible as evidence? Guein argues his statements made surrounding his pat-down, e.”
State v. Schooler, 419 P.3d 1164 (Kan. 2018). “K.S.A. 22-3216(2); State v. Gray, 306 Kan.”
State v. Boggess, 425 P.3d 324 (Kan. 2018). “Instead, the State contends, as the driver of the vehicle, Motley possessed apparent authority to consent.”
State v. Jimenez, 420 P.3d 464 (Kan. 2018). “K.S.A. 22-3216(2) ; see also State v. Gray , 306 Kan.”
State v. Cash, 483 P.3d 1047 (Kan. 2021). “K.S.A. 22-3216(2). When a law enforcement officer conducts a routine traffic stop on a public roadway, a seizure of the driver occurs within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.”
State v. Hubbard, 430 P.3d 956 (Kan. 2018). “K.S.A. 22-3216(2) ; see also State v. Gray , 306 Kan.”
State v. Regelman, 430 P.3d 946 (Kan. 2018). “K.S.A. 22-3216(2) ; *952 State v. Gray , 306 Kan.”
State v. Martin, 179 P.3d 457 (Kan. 2008). “” Pointedly, however, the State begins by reciting the provisions of K.S.A. 22-3216(2), which specifically provides that “the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful shall be on the prosecution.”
State v. Holman, 284 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2012). “” Moreover, K.S.A. 22-3216(2) directs that the “judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion.”
State v. Hai That Ton, 422 P.3d 678 (Kan. 2018). “That burden is codified in K.S.A. 22-3216(2), which provides that, at a hearing upon a defendant's written motion to suppress evidence, 'the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful shall be on the prosecution.”
State v. Douglas, 441 P.3d 1050 (Kan. 2019). “See K.S.A. 22-3216(2) ; State v. Daniel , 291 Kan.”
State v. Dunn, 662 P.2d 1286 (Kan. 1983). “K.S.A. 22-3216(2); State v. Morgan, 222 Kan.”
State v. Smith, 268 P.3d 1206 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “Accordingly, we conclude that Smith is not entitled to the relief contemplated in K.S.A. 22-3216, which governs motions to suppress, and that the State did not have the burden to lay a foundation for the admission of the results of the breath test at the suppression hearing.”
State v. Morlock, 190 P.3d 1002 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “The State argues that even if the encounter did not become voluntary, Cocking had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to extend the duration of the traffic stop.”
State v. Grace, Jr., 17 P.3d 951 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “See K.S.A. 22-3216(2); State v. Houze, 23 Kan.”
State v. Kelly, 285 P.3d 1026 (Kan. 2012). “” In considering the motion to suppress illegally seized evidence, the “judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion.”
State v. Cheeks, 908 P.2d 175 (Kan. 1995). “K.S.A. 22-3216. The motion must be in writing and state facts showing that the search and seizure were unlawful.”
State v. Harder, 650 P.2d 724 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). “Defendant raises three sub-points within this issue: (a) Whether the officers conducted an illegal search by shining their flashlights into the dark truck without probable cause; (b) whether the warrantless search of the toolbox within which marijuana was hidden was illegal; and…”
State v. Lutz, 474 P.3d 1258 (Kan. 2020). “K.S.A. 22-3216(2). Appellate courts employ a two-part process when reviewing a district court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence.”
State v. Smith, 476 P.3d 847 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Davis, 78 P.3d 474 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Evans, 360 P.3d 1086 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Bieker, 132 P.3d 478 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “[K.S.A. 22-3216] authorizes reentertainment of the motion in the court’s discretion.”
State v. Daly, 789 P.2d 1203 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990).
State v. Wilson, 39 P.3d 668 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Rice, 955 P.2d 1258 (Kan. 1998).
State v. Brown, 579 P.2d 729 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).
State v. Whitehurst, 772 P.2d 1251 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Phillips, 315 P.3d 887 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Manwarren, 440 P.3d 606 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Anderson (Kan. 2026).
State v. Thompson, 138 P.3d 398 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Gray, 360 P.3d 472 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). “K.S.A. 22-3216(1). As Gray notes, a traffic stop is a seizure.”
City of Salina v. Martin, 849 P.2d 1010 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Goodro, 506 P.3d 918 (Kan. 2022).
State v. Whitehead, 622 P.2d 665 (Kan. 1981).
State v. Arrizabalaga, 485 P.3d 634 (Kan. 2021).
State v. Gray (Kan. 2017). “S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-4606 et seq. 2. A district judge considering a motion to suppress based on an alleged violation of Kansas' biased-based policing statutes, K.”
State v. Salazar, 431 P.3d 312 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Thompson (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Anderson (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Dixon (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Chapman (Kan. 2016).
State v. Cleverly (Kan. 2016).
State v. Glover (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Carr (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Tonn (Kan. 2018).
State v. Jeffrey (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 22-3216(3) — 9 cases
State v. Kelly, 285 P.3d 1026 (Kan. 2012). “” In considering the motion to suppress illegally seized evidence, the “judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion.”
State v. Holman, 284 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2012). “” Moreover, K.S.A. 22-3216(2) directs that the “judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion.”
State v. Sullivan & Sullivan, 578 P.2d 1108 (Kan. 1978). “) We note in the present case the witness to the seizure was not endorsed on the information and no motion to suppress was made before trial as required by K.S.A. 22-3216(3); however, the effect of these matters will not be discussed since such procedural matters may be taken…”
State v. Roudybush, 686 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1984). “Prior to trial defendant moved the court, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3216(3), for leave to develop any additional Fourth Amendment violations perceived during the course of the trial.”
State v. Wickliffe, 826 P.2d 522 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “K.S.A. 22-3216 requires that any party seeking to have evidence suppressed must file a written motion before the commencement of trial.”
State v. Thompson (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Bennett, 892 P.2d 522 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Jeffrey (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Sims (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 22-3216(4) — 1 case
State v. Platten, 594 P.2d 201 (Kan. 1979). “In our opinion the language “prior to commencement of trial” means that at any stage of the proceedings before the actual start of the trial, an interlocutory appeal may be taken from any order of the court quashing a warrant or a search warrant, suppressing evidence or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.