Overview

A motion to suppress asks the judge to throw out evidence that police obtained illegally, an unlawful traffic stop, an arrest without probable cause, or a blood draw without a valid warrant. In Texas it is brought under Article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and critically, Texas has no broad good-faith exception, so evidence from an illegal stop or search is generally excluded even when the officer believed they were acting properly.

If the judge grants the motion, the state can lose the evidence its entire case depends on, which often leads to a dismissal or a sharply reduced charge.

What a motion to suppress is

A motion to suppress is a formal request asking the court to exclude evidence the police obtained in violation of your rights. It is decided at a pretrial hearing, before a jury ever hears the case, and it can be the single most consequential event in a DWI. If the evidence the state needs, the officer’s observations, the field test results, or the BAC, came from an unlawful stop, arrest, or search, suppressing it can leave the prosecution with nothing to prove its case. See the DWI defense framework.

 

Texas Article 38.23 and the narrow good-faith exception

Texas suppresses illegally obtained evidence under Article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the state’s statutory exclusionary rule. What makes Texas different, and more favorable to the defense than federal court, is what it does not have: a broad good-faith exception.

Under federal law, evidence from a flawed search can often be saved if the officer acted in good faith. Texas rejects that general rule. Under Article 38.23, if the stop or search was unlawful, the evidence is excluded even when the officer honestly believed they were acting properly. The one narrow exception, under Article 38.23(b), is for evidence obtained by an officer acting in objective good-faith reliance on a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate on probable cause. Outside that warrant situation, the legality of each step, not the officer’s state of mind, is the question that decides the motion.

 

What gets challenged

A motion to suppress targets the places where police authority can break down.

  • The stop. A traffic stop requires reasonable suspicion of a violation or of criminal activity. If the officer pulled you over without it, on a hunch, a profile, or a mistake of law, everything obtained after the stop can be challenged as the fruit of an illegal detention.
  • The arrest. An arrest requires probable cause to believe you were driving while intoxicated. If the officer arrested you on thin observations or a botched field test, the arrest and what followed it can be attacked.
  • The blood draw. A warrantless blood draw is generally unlawful under Missouri v. McNeely absent consent or a true emergency. And even with a warrant, a Franks v. Delaware challenge can attack a warrant obtained through false statements or reckless omissions in the supporting affidavit.

 

The blood warrant: McNeely and Franks

Blood cases give the motion to suppress two distinct angles. First, under Missouri v. McNeely, police generally need a warrant to take your blood, and the natural dissipation of alcohol is not, by itself, the kind of emergency that excuses getting one. A warrantless draw without consent or a genuine exigency is subject to suppression.

Second, even a warrant can be challenged. Under Franks v. Delaware, if the affidavit supporting the blood warrant contained a false statement made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth, or omitted material facts, and that information was necessary to establish probable cause, the warrant, and the blood result it produced, can be thrown out. The affidavit is not beyond challenge just because a magistrate signed it.

 

First you have to get the evidence: the Michael Morton Act

A suppression motion is only as good as the evidence behind it, and getting that evidence is its own fight. Under Texas’s Michael Morton Act (Article 39.14), the State has a broad duty to turn over what it has: the dashcam and bodycam video, 911 calls, the offense report, the breath machine’s maintenance and calibration records, and the lab file. Those are exactly the materials a defense uses to show a stop was unjustified or a test was mishandled. When the State sits on this evidence, that failure is itself a problem the defense can raise. So a strong suppression effort usually starts with aggressive discovery, not with the motion itself.

 

What happens at the hearing, and after

The motion is litigated at a pretrial suppression hearing where the officer typically testifies and is cross-examined, often against the dashcam and bodycam video and against the sworn record already created at the ALR hearing. If the judge grants the motion, the suppressed evidence cannot be used at trial. When the suppressed evidence is central, the breath or blood result, the stop itself, the practical effect is often a dismissal or a significantly reduced charge, because the state can no longer prove what it needs to prove.

 

How Deandra Grant Law builds the motion

A strong suppression motion is built early and on the record. Managing Partner Deandra Grant uses the ALR hearing to lock in the officer’s account under oath, reviews the dashcam and bodycam against that testimony, and pairs the legal challenge to the stop and arrest with a scientific challenge to any warrant affidavit and chemical test. With more than 30 years and 500 trials behind the firm, suppression issues are litigated, not just raised.

 

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a motion to suppress in a DWI case?

It is a pretrial request asking the judge to throw out evidence police obtained illegally, such as from an unlawful stop, an arrest without probable cause, or a blood draw without a valid warrant. If granted, that evidence cannot be used at trial.

Does Texas have a good-faith exception?

Not a broad one. Under Article 38.23, Texas excludes illegally obtained evidence even when the officer believed they were acting properly. The only narrow exception (Article 38.23(b)) is for evidence obtained in objective good-faith reliance on a warrant; outside that, the officer’s good intentions do not save evidence from an unlawful stop or search.

Can an illegal traffic stop get my DWI dismissed?

It can. If the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop, the evidence that followed can be suppressed, and when that evidence is central, the case often ends in a dismissal or a reduced charge.

Can a blood test be suppressed?

Yes. A warrantless draw is generally unlawful under Missouri v. McNeely without consent or a true emergency, and even a warrant can be challenged under Franks v. Delaware if the supporting affidavit contained false statements or reckless omissions.

What happens if a motion to suppress is granted?

The suppressed evidence cannot be used at trial. When the suppressed evidence is essential, such as the BAC result or the stop itself, the state often cannot proceed, leading to a dismissal or a significant reduction.

When is a motion to suppress decided?

At a pretrial suppression hearing, before the jury hears the case. The officer usually testifies and is cross-examined, often against the dashcam, bodycam, and the earlier ALR hearing record.

How does the defense get the dashcam video and test records?

Through discovery. Texas’s Michael Morton Act (Article 39.14) requires the State to turn over evidence like the dashcam and bodycam video, 911 calls, the offense report, and the breath-machine and lab records, which is the raw material a motion to suppress is built from.

 

If the Evidence Was Obtained Illegally, It Can Be Thrown Out.

Texas has no broad good-faith exception, which makes a motion to suppress one of the most powerful tools in a DWI defense. Deandra Grant Law litigates suppression across Dallas, Fort Worth, North Texas, and Waco. Call (214) 225-7117 for a free, confidential consultation.

 

Related Defenses Topics

Attorneys Who Handle This Charge

View All Attorneys

Offices Handling These Cases

Books & Guides