Last Friday, I argued a Motion to Suppress before the Court in Pinellas County. A Motion to Suppress is a Motion to exclude illegally obtained evidence from being used by the State in a criminal trial against the Defendant. Any evidence that is obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights are illegal and should be excluded under the law. After I argued the Motion, the Judge took the matter under advisement and has yet to rule on the case. I spoke to the assistant state attorney about the possibility of a plea bargain depending on the results of the judge’s ruling. I was informed by the assistant state attorney, that it the policy of the State Attorney’s Office to refuse to offer a plea if the party files a Motion to Suppress Evidence. In my opinion this is shocking to the concept of due process. The State is punishing people who question the illegality of the police’s conduct. As an attorney, I am bound by a duty of ethics and out of respect for the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to file all appropriate motions for the benefit of my client. I must file motions to strike and exclude evidence that is found in violation of my client’s fourth and fifth amendment Constitutional rights. It is ethically wrong for the State Attorney to prevent a criminal defendant from exercising their right to challenge illegally obtained evidence in their cases. Moreover, the State Attorney has a duty to promote lawful activity on the behalf of law enforcement. The exclusionary rule was created by the Supreme Court in order to punish law enforcement officers who violate the Constitutional rights of the public. It is in everyone’s best interests for the police to follow the law. However, by strong arming those who challenge police illegalities, the state attorney is protecting those who abuse our constitutional rights. Allowing law enforcement to violate our fundamental rights without consequence is a greater threat to liberty than any crimes that any of my clients may have committed.