What is the current state of the law on a motion to suppress evidence?

Underlying the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments is the basic proposition that 'no man is to be convicted on unconstitutional evidence.' (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 657, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 1692, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081.) In light of the situation as it today exists, the present rule--which imposes upon the accused the burden of proving the illegality of a seizure on a motion to suppress-subverts this principle by making it possible for some defendants to be convicted on evidence obtained in violation of [270 N.E.2d 715] constitutional guarantees. This follows from the fact that a trial judge who is unsure whether the prosecution's account of the seizure is credible must, nevertheless, resolve his doubt in favor of the People and admit the evidence. To thus increase the likelihood of a conviction on proof of dubious constitutionality must be stamped as highly unreasonable[28 N.Y.2d 371] and unfair. A change in the rule will help assure that a defendant's constitutional rights will not be violated since, by placing the burden on the People, the judge will be permitted to suppress evidence in cases where, for instance, he finds the testimony of each side evenly balanced on the scales of credibility and is unable to make up his mind as to who is telling the truth.