

A national catalog of what got thrown out, and why.
A free, searchable database of cases where confessions, statements, or warrant evidence were suppressed. Each entry breaks down the specific investigative error, the legal ground for suppression, and what a properly trained investigator should have done instead. Current through June 2026, from Mapp to the geofence cases now before the Supreme Court.
Free. Public. Current.
Miranda·Voluntariness·Franks & Warrant Defects·Scope & Particularity·Digital Search·Geofence Warrants
When a confession gets suppressed, the case usually does too. When a warrant gets attacked at a Franks hearing and the affidavit collapses, every piece of evidence downstream of that warrant is in jeopardy.
The cases that produce those outcomes are written down. The opinions are public. The errors investigators made are documented in plain English by appellate judges. Almost nobody reads them.
This database fixes that. Every entry breaks down what the investigator did, why the court suppressed, and what the lesson is for the next investigator working a similar case. Free, public, and built to be sent around your detective bureau.
The case isn't lost in court. It's lost in the room. The opinion just makes it official.
Every entry includes the case name, citation, factual summary, the legal ground for suppression, and the operational lesson. Joe is adding his own commentary to every case as the database expands.
When new cases are added, an email with the rulings, a short note on the dominant trend Joe is seeing, and a forwardable summary you can use for roll call. No selling. Unsubscribe in one click.
If you already train your team off published suppression rulings, this is the easiest way to keep that pipeline fed.
Drop your work email below. You'll get the new cases as they are added, not on a fixed schedule.
Brief, plain-language explanations of the doctrines that show up most often in suppression rulings. Use the filter above to pull cases tagged to each.
Custody plus interrogation triggers the warnings requirement. Defective warnings, premature questioning, or invalid waiver puts the entire statement at risk.
Even with proper Miranda, a statement obtained by physical, psychological, or coercive pressure can be suppressed as involuntary under the Due Process Clause.
The custody analysis turns on whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave. Misjudging custody is one of the most common pre-Miranda errors.
False statements or reckless omissions in a warrant affidavit can void the warrant and suppress all evidence. The defect is in the document, not the search.
A warrant must describe with particularity what is to be seized. Overbroad warrants and overbroad executions both result in suppression.
The exception is narrower than most officers think. A lawful arrest does not authorize an unbounded search of the arrestee's effects or vehicle.
Phones, cell-site location, cloud data, and digital evidence require warrants under modern Fourth Amendment doctrine. Search-incident exceptions do not apply.
Deliberately questioning without Miranda first to elicit an unwarned statement, then giving warnings and re-asking, produces suppression of both rounds.
Warrants that start with a whole population, every device in an area, or everyone who searched a term, and work backward to a suspect. Courts are split on whether they are unconstitutional general warrants, and the Supreme Court is deciding the question now.
The protected area immediately around a home, porch, driveway enclosure, yard, carries near-full Fourth Amendment protection. Stepping onto curtilage to investigate, including a dog sniff, can itself be a search.
Probable cause lets you search a vehicle without a warrant, but the exception does not let you enter a home's curtilage to reach a car, and it is narrower than the search-incident-to-arrest rule officers often confuse it with.
A true emergency, imminent escape, destruction of evidence, or danger to life, can justify a warrantless entry. Hot pursuit of a misdemeanant and community caretaking do not automatically qualify, especially at the home.
Breath tests are generally allowed incident to a DUI arrest; blood tests usually need a warrant. The natural dissipation of alcohol is not, by itself, an emergency that excuses the warrant.
Consent must be voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, and a present, objecting co-occupant can defeat it. Misrepresented authority or a pretextual removal of the objector invalidates the search.
An investigative stop needs specific, articulable reasonable suspicion, and a frisk needs a separate basis to believe the person is armed. A stop cannot be prolonged for an unrelated investigation without new suspicion.
Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and evidence derived from it, is generally suppressed. Good-faith reliance, attenuation, independent source, and inevitable discovery are the main ways evidence still comes in.
Every suppression in this database was preventable. The same investigator, trained on the right framework, gets a different outcome. These are the ASC courses that target the specific errors documented above.
Targets: Miranda errors, voluntariness, custody analysis, two-step interrogation, false-confession risk factors.
View Course →Targets: Franks issues, particularity, staleness, scope, digital search authority, warrant-language defects.
View Course →Targets: pre-custody field encounters, voluntariness on the street, the moment custody actually attaches, and what to put in the report.
View Course →The database is national in scope. State supreme courts, state appellate divisions, federal districts, and circuit rulings are all in play. If you've got a published opinion that demonstrates a clear suppression error worth teaching from, we want to see it.
Active matters with open investigative steps, sealed proceedings, juvenile cases without anonymization, or matters where adding the case could create officer safety or victim safety concerns.
Joe personally reviews every submission. Strong submissions are added with attribution to the submitter, where consented.
Have one we haven't covered? Send it through the contact form. Joe answers personally.
Yes. Free, public, no login required. Subscribing to case-law alerts requires an email. Submitting a case requires contact information. Everything else is open.
A case is added when (1) it is published, (2) it documents a clear investigative error that produced the suppression, and (3) the lesson it teaches is generalizable to other investigators. Case selection is editorial. Joe personally reviews every entry.
No. The database is educational. Entries summarize published opinions and offer operational lessons for investigators. Nothing here is a substitute for advice from your agency counsel, your prosecutor partner, or licensed counsel of your own.
Cite the underlying opinion, not the database summary. Each entry includes the citation and a link to the opinion where available. Use this database to find cases, not to characterize their holdings in a court filing.
It is expanded in waves as significant rulings come down, drawn from published Supreme Court and appellate decisions plus selected federal district and state rulings of broad teaching value. The most recent major update was June 2026. Subscribe to case-law alerts to be notified when new cases are added.
ASC trains investigators in the techniques that prevent the outcomes catalogued here. The database is a service to the field, a teaching tool, and an honest acknowledgment that the legal landscape investigators work in is documented, public, and very much worth studying.
Reach out. Agency-internal use, training-library inclusion, and academic syndication are all options. Commercial republication requires written agreement.
Real opinions·Real errors·Real lessons·Free to use·Current through 2026
One email a month. New cases, the trend Joe is watching, a forwardable summary for your bureau.