![handle is hein.crs/govemvp0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Congressional ______
'aResearch Service
Does Losing a Motion to Suppress Bar a
Sentencing Reduction for Admitting Guilt?
Federal Courts Are Split
September 14, 2023
The U.S. Sentencing Commission may soon address an issue that has divided the federal courts of appeals
impacting the lengths of sentences for some criminal defendants who plead guilty after challenging the
evidence against them. If a defendant charged with a criminal offense believes that evidence of his or her
criminal wrongdoing was obtained in violation of certain constitutional provisions, the defendant may file
a pre-trial motion a suppress to prevent the prosecution from using the evidence at trial. One common
basis for a motion to suppress, for example, is the Fourth Amendment, which generally shields people and
their property from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. The resolution of a motion to
suppress may involve some degree of preparation by the parties, briefing and argument, and deliberation
by the court.
If a motion to suppress is denied, a defendant may decide to plead guilty. In the federal system, the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) provide that a defendant may receive a two-level sentencing reduction
for acceptance of responsibility, or truthfully admitting to the conduct underlying the offense(s) of
conviction. Under U.S.S.G. @ 3E1.1(b), the Guidelines also authorize a defendant convicted of a relatively
serious offense and who qualifies for the acceptance of responsibility reduction to obtain, only upon a
government motion, an additional one-level reduction for assisting the government by timely notifying
authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty. The reduction is justified, at least in relevant part,
because timely notice of an intent to plead guilty frees the government from preparing for trial.
Federal appeals courts are divided as to whether the government may refuse to move the court for the
additional one-point reduction because that the defendant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress: three
circuits have held that the government may withhold its reduction motion on this basis, while five have
concluded that a motion to suppress is not a valid reason for the government to not move for the one-point
reduction.
In 2020, the Supreme Court was asked to resolve this disagreement among the circuits. The Court
declined review, prompting Justice Sotomayor to issue a statement, joined by Justice Gorsuch, urging the
U.S. Sentencing Commission-which promulgates the Guidelines-to address this issue in the first
instance. In calling on the Commission to act, Justice Sotomayor emphasized that [t]he effect of a one-
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB11041
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/govemvp0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most