Introduction In the United States of America (USA), the constitution stipulates certain criteria that parties should meet for a court of law to consider any piece of evidence as admissible in law. For example, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that such evidence was acquired in a lawful manner (Roberson, Wallace & Stuckey, 26). It is a common procedure for defense teams to try and challenge the admissibility of evidence in a court of law. The team will especially counter evidence that it feels will work against their case. Defense lawyers exploit even the slightest mistakes and irregularities that police and other investigators may have committed during the collection of evidence. One should understand that the police department and the prosecutor’s office work closely together in order to combat crime. The investigation conducted by the police helps the prosecutor in proving cases in the court. As such, police officers must take precautions when gathering evidence. The investigators must make sure that the prosecution can use the evidence that they have gathered and submitted against the defendant. The police must ensure that the evidence submitted and used by the prosecution in court is reliable and can prove a case beyond any reasonable doubt. The US constitution protects suspects against prosecution based on evidence gathered through unlawful means (Samaha, 38). It is one of the reasons why the constitutions regulates the nature of the evidence used by the prosecution team in a court of law. One of the most common grounds used by the defense attorneys in suppressing evidence in a court of law is based on search without a court warrant. According to the country’s constitution, the police must acquire a search warrant before accessing and conduct a search on personal property. Failure by the police to acquire a search warrant is considered unconstitutional and a violation of human rights. However, there exists a narrow range of exceptions where the law allows the police to carry out a search without a warrant. If the information presented before the court was obtained without a warrant, the prosecutor presiding over the case must prove that the search fell under this narrow range of exceptions. The judge may rule that the evidence is inadmissible if the prosecution fails in proving the exceptional nature of the search. In this essay, the author analyzes how the state can counter a motion by the defense to suppress evidence before a court of law. The author will assess how the judge will likely rule on the motion to suppress. The case revolves around Danny Dawgmire (the defendant) and the Sheriff’s Department in a rural North Georgia County. The police had conducted an unwarranted search on the defendant’s trailer after receiving a tip off that he was involved in the preparation and distribution of methamphetamines. The defense team is now moving a motion to suppress the evidence produced by the prosecution, claiming that the search was unwarranted. Countering an Evidence Suppression Motion To begin with, the ‘warrantless’ search was justified since a crime had already taken place. The American constitution stipulates that th