Challenging how the police got their evidence

People usually arrive at this with a sentence already formed. They never read me my rights. They had no reason to stop me. Sometimes that is exactly right. Being right is the first half. The remedy runs on court rules, with deadlines that arrive early, and it has to be asked for in writing.

The two hearings where this happens

Two rules do most of this work, and which one applies depends on what the state wants to use against you.

The rule	What it covers
CrR 3.5 / CrRLJ 3.5	Statements you made. The hearing is held when the state intends to offer one
CrR 3.6 / CrRLJ 3.6	Physical, oral or identification evidence, other than statements under 3.5

The CrR versions apply in superior court. The CrRLJ versions apply in district and municipal court, where most misdemeanors and DUI cases are heard.

The motion is a writing exercise before it is an argument

A suppression motion is not something raised out loud on the day. CrR 3.6 requires it in writing, supported by an affidavit or document setting forth the facts the moving party anticipates will be elicited at a hearing, along with a memorandum of authorities. The court then decides from those papers whether an evidentiary hearing is needed at all, and if it decides none is required it enters a written order setting out its reasons.

A motion with no facts in it can be denied without a hearing. The affidavit is what buys the hearing, which is why the small details of what happened matter this early.

The deadline is not the trial date

In superior court, pretrial motions are generally reserved for and presented at the omnibus hearing, which the court sets after a not guilty plea is entered. That hearing comes early, and the rule has teeth: failure to raise or give notice at the hearing of any error or issue of which the party concerned has knowledge may constitute waiver of that issue.

District and municipal court works differently. There is no omnibus hearing and no waiver clause there, and CrRLJ 4.5 leaves a pretrial hearing to the court's discretion, so the deadline is whatever that court sets. It is worth asking early what it is.

Either way, the investigation behind a motion has to be finished long before trial.

Washington throws out more than federal law does

The state constitution is where this diverges. Article I, section 7 says no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law. Different words from the Fourth Amendment, and read more broadly.

The Washington Supreme Court has described this state's exclusionary rule as nearly categorical, and has rejected the federal good faith exception. If evidence was illegally obtained it is suppressed, regardless of an officer's reasonable belief that what he was doing was lawful. An honest mistake is not the answer here that it can be federally.

Whether the arrest itself was allowed

Warrantless arrest authority in Washington is statutory. An officer with probable cause may arrest for a felony without a warrant. For a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, RCW 10.31.100 permits it only when the offense is committed in the presence of an officer — except in eleven listed situations, which cover a great deal, including protection order violations and offenses involving physical harm.

Clocks run too. A person who is arrested is entitled to a judicial determination of probable cause no later than 48 hours after arrest. And CrR 3.1 requires that someone taken into custody be immediately advised of the right to a lawyer, and at the earliest opportunity given access to a telephone and the public defender's number. The district court rule says the same thing in slightly softer terms.

An error only helps if it produced something

Suppression takes evidence away. It does not, on its own, end a case, and that is better known now than later.

If a bad stop produced the breath test, taking the breath test out may leave the state with very little. If something was done wrong that produced no evidence, there is often no remedy attached to it at all.

Suppression is not dismissal. It takes a piece off the board. Sometimes the case cannot stand without that piece, and sometimes it can.

When the remedy is larger than suppression

Under CrR 8.3(b) — CrRLJ 8.3 in district and municipal court — a court may dismiss a prosecution for arbitrary action or governmental misconduct where there has been prejudice to the rights of the accused which materially affects the right to a fair trial. That rule was amended effective September 1, 2025, and now directs the court to weigh the seriousness of the offense, the effect of a dismissal on community safety and public confidence, and the degree and impact of the misconduct.

It is a high bar, and it should be.

What is worth doing now

Write down the sequence while it is still clear. Where you were, what was said, what you were asked, who arrived and when. That account is what an affidavit gets built from, and memory for it is at its best in the first week.

The state's file matters too. The prosecuting attorney must disclose material or information within their knowledge which tends to negate the defendant's guilt. That obligation sits in the court rule itself, and it is worth asking about rather than waiting for.