Suppression of evidence is a term used in the United States legal system to describe the lawful or unlawful act of preventing evidence from being shown in a trial. This could happen for several reasons. For example, if a judge believes that the evidence in question was obtained illegally, the judge can rule that it not be shown in court. It could also refer to a prosecutor improperly or intentionally hiding evidence that does not go with their case and could suggest or prove to the judge or jury that the defendant is not guilty or that he is legally obligated to show the defense. In the latter case, this would be a violation of the 5th amendment to the United States Constitution. Also Rule 3.8 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct requires prosecutors to "make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense." This can result in a mistrial in the latter case and/or the dismissal of the prosecutor.
Motion to suppress
In common law legal systems, a motion to suppress is a formal, written request to a judge for an order that certain evidence be excluded from consideration by the judge or jury at trial. In the United States, the term "motion to suppress" typically encompasses motions in criminal cases where the proposed basis for exclusion arises from the United States Constitution, a state constitution, or a specific statute permitting the exclusion of certain types of evidence. A motion to exclude evidence where the proposed basis for exclusion arises from the rules of evidence is more commonly termed a motion in limine.
If the discovery of an item was obtained by illegal means, it may still be allowed into evidence under some circumstances. These exceptions include:
Inevitable discovery - if discovery of the evidence was inevitable via purely legal means
Independent source - if the discovery involved a combination of legal and illegal means, but the illegality was of marginal significance, such that the evidence could have been discovered based on the legal source alone
Standing - the violation affects the rights of someone other than the defendant, and the defendant does not have standing to complain
Good faith - the illegality is not the fault of the law enforcement officers who obtained the evidence, who did so pursuant to a facially valid warrant granted by a neutral and detached magistrate.
Attenuation - If the relationship between the illegality and the nature of the evidence obtained is reduced sufficiently for the evidence to be considered untainted
Evidence obtained as a result of Miranda violations is also subject to special analysis, depending on whether the statement is deemed voluntary or coerced, not merely whether police provided the appropriate warnings.