Procedimientos sobre la supresión de pruebas en juicios

Explicación Simple

Si la policía encuentra algo en tu auto durante una parada, a veces puedes pedir que no se use como prueba en tu juicio. Pero si la policía tenía razones para detenerte, es probable que lo que encontré se pueda usar en tu contra.

Es como si un profesor revisara tu tarea y encontrara una respuesta incorrecta; si él tenía una buena razón para revisar tu trabajo, no puedes pedir que ignore esa respuesta.

Ejemplo Práctico

Imagina que Juan es detenido por la policía por manejar de manera errática. Durante la parada, la policía encuentra una botella de alcohol en su auto. Aunque Juan dice que no estaba tomando, los oficiales pueden usar esa prueba en el juicio porque tenían razones válidas para detenerlo.

Texto Original del Estatuto (Inglés)

was authorized; thus, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search. Lopez v. State, 286 Ga. App. 873 , 650 S.E.2d 430 (2007). Trial court did not err by refusing to suppress the defendant's blood-test results based on not being under arrest prior to being read Georgia's Implied Consent notice because although the defendant's recollection differed from that of the law-enforcement officer, and although defense counsel cross-examined the officer extensively as to alleged inconsistencies in the chronology of events, the officer testified that the officer issued citations to the defendant before reading Georgia's Implied Consent notice. Chernowski v. State, 330 Ga. App. 702 , 769 S.E.2d 126 (2015). Probable cause to arrest. - Officer need not personally be aware of all the facts which would support a probable cause determination so long as it can be established by evidence that the officer's actions were the end result of a chain of information-sharing, one link of which is an officer in possession of probable cause. Waldrop v. State, 205 Ga. App. 864 , 424 S.E.2d 31 , cert. denied, 205 Ga. App. 901 , 424 S.E.2d 31 (1992). Trial court properly granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained after the defendant's car was impounded during a traffic stop because, even though the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop based on criminal database search results that