Utah courts will suppress or exclude evidence if a judge determines that police obtained it through conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment rights of the person charged. Additional evidence that police find as a result of an initial search conducted in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment can also be suppressed by a judge as “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
The “exclusionary rule” is a judicially-created remedy that is intended to discourage unconstitutional conduct by police. When police engage in conduct in violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure (or in violation of comparable provisions of the Utah State Constitution), a defendant may file a suppression motion asking the court to enter an order that evidence obtained by police misconduct cannot be used by the prosecution in its case-in-chief.
The Utah Supreme Court has held that a warrantless search conducted by police is “presumptively” unreasonable. This presumption places on the prosecution the burden of proof in a motion to suppress and requires the prosecution to show some exception to the normal warrant requirement. If no such exception is shown, the court should suppress the evidence obtained by police, ordering that the prosecution cannot use the evidence.
Evidence that can be suppressed can include physical objects, test results, visual observations, and statements made by a witness or by the defendant. When police subsequently find additional evidence based on information or evidence initially obtained in violation of the Constitution, that evidence may be ordered suppressed as being “fruit of a poisonous tree” even if police have subsequently obtained a search warrant for further searches.