Police officers had probable cause to believe that drug dealing was routinely taking place in a particular room at a local motel. The motel manager authorized the officers to enter the room and provided them with a passkey. Without obtaining a warrant, the officers knocked on the room's door, announced their presence, and told the occupants that they would like to speak with them. The officers then heard yelling and repeated flushing of the toilet. They then used the passkey and entered the room, where they saw the occupants dumping drugs into the toilet. The occupants of the room were charged with drug dealing and have moved to suppress the drugs.
Should the court grant the motion to suppress?

In such a situation, no because the officers discovered the cocaine during a lawful protective sweep of the house looking for the mans accomplice hence, the court cannot grant the motion of suppress.

A motion to suppress is a motion that talks about the exclusion of evidence from trial. In the United States, a motion to suppress is a request made by a criminal defendant in advance of a criminal trial asking the court to exclude certain evidence from the trial. But in the above scenario the police officials while conducting a lawful sweep checked in a probable cause to believe that drug dealing was routinely taking place in a particular room at a local motel. Hence, the evidences collected cannot be removed on the virtue of motion of suppress.

Know more about "motion of suppress" visit

brainly.com/question/6583224

#SPJ4