When the government obtains evidence improperly, the tool for fighting it is the motion to suppress, a request to keep that evidence out of the court-martial entirely. Doing it successfully is procedural as much as substantive: the right rule, raised at the right time, with the burden placed on the right party. Two Military Rules of Evidence carry most of this work.
The two rules that do the work
Unlawfully gathered evidence usually falls into one of two categories, each with its own rule:
- Searches and seizures (MRE 311). Evidence obtained from an unlawful search or seizure is generally inadmissible. MRE 311 incorporates Fourth Amendment protections into military law. To use it, the accused must make a timely motion and must have a basis to object, such as a reasonable expectation of privacy or a legitimate interest in the property seized.
- Statements (MRE 304). A statement obtained from the accused through coercion, unlawful inducement, or without proper rights advisement is inadmissible. A motion to suppress a statement must generally be made before plea.
Identifying which rule fits the evidence is the first move, because searches and statements travel different paths to suppression.
Timing and the burden
The procedure has teeth that a defense must respect. These challenges must be raised at the right time, typically before plea, or they can be lost. And the timing matters in another way: absent a motion, the prosecution carries no burden to prove the evidence was lawfully obtained and the judge need not even hold a hearing. Once the defense properly raises the issue, however, the burden is generally on the prosecution to establish admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. So the motion is what shifts the burden onto the government.
The exclusionary principle and its limits
The underlying engine is the exclusionary rule: evidence that flows from an illegal search or an involuntary statement should not reach the factfinder. But the rule is not absolute; military practice, like civilian law, recognizes limits and exceptions to suppression in certain circumstances. So part of contesting the evidence is anticipating the government’s argument that an exception should save it.
A military attorney therefore contests unlawful evidence by classifying it (search versus statement), invoking the right rule, filing a timely motion to shift the burden to the government, and litigating both the illegality and any claimed exception.
Suppose a search of a member’s quarters lacked proper authorization: the attorney files a timely motion to suppress, shifting to the government the burden of proving the evidence was lawfully obtained.
The essential takeaway is that suppression is a disciplined process, not a general protest. MRE 311 governs unlawful searches and MRE 304 governs improper statements, the motion must be timely to shift the burden to the prosecution, and the exclusionary rule, with its recognized limits, decides whether the tainted evidence stays out.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a motion to suppress?
A request to exclude evidence that was obtained unlawfully, such as through an illegal search or an improperly obtained statement, so it cannot be used at the court-martial.
Who has to prove the evidence was lawful?
Once the defense properly raises the issue, the burden is generally on the prosecution to establish admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence; absent a motion, there is no such burden.
When must a suppression motion be made?
These motions must be raised at the right time, typically before plea, or the objection can be lost.
This article is general information about suppressing evidence in courts-martial. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Application is fact-specific and the law can change. Anyone facing a court-martial should consult qualified defense counsel.
Sources