Murray v. United States
487 U.S. 533 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The independent source doctrine permits the admission of evidence initially discovered during an illegal, warrantless search if that same evidence is later obtained through a valid search warrant that is wholly independent of the initial illegal entry.
Facts:
- Federal law enforcement agents surveilled Michael Murray and his co-conspirators based on informant tips about suspected drug activity
- Agents observed Murray and James Carter drive a truck and a camper into a South Boston warehouse and leave approximately 20 minutes later
- The truck and camper were subsequently turned over to other drivers, followed by agents, and lawfully seized
- A search of the vehicles revealed they contained marijuana
- After learning the vehicles contained drugs, several agents forced entry into the warehouse without a warrant
- Inside, the agents observed numerous burlap-wrapped bales in plain view but did not disturb them and exited the premises
- The agents kept the warehouse under surveillance while other agents sought a search warrant
- The warrant application did not mention the prior warrantless entry or any observations made during it, relying only on information gathered prior to the entry
- After a valid warrant was issued approximately eight hours later, the agents re-entered the warehouse and seized 270 bales of marijuana
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners Murray and Carter moved to suppress the evidence found in the warehouse in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
- The District Court denied the motion
- Following a trial, the petitioners were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute illegal drugs
- The petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
- The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the convictions, assuming the initial entry was unlawful but holding the evidence was admissible under the independent source doctrine
- Murray and Carter filed petitions for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which were granted and their cases consolidated
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Whether the independent source doctrine allows the introduction of evidence initially discovered during an illegal search but subsequently acquired through a valid search warrant obtained on the basis of information wholly unconnected with the initial illegality?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
The independent source doctrine permits the introduction of evidence initially discovered during an unlawful search but later obtained independently from activities untainted by the initial illegality. The exclusionary rule's purpose is to put police in the same position they would have been in absent the misconduct, not a worse one. Excluding evidence that was also obtained through a lawful, independent warrant would place the police in a worse position. The ultimate question is whether the search pursuant to the warrant was genuinely independent of the prior illegal entry. This requires determining that the agents' decision to seek the warrant was not prompted by what they saw during the illegal entry, and that the information from the illegal entry did not affect the magistrate's decision to issue the warrant. Because the District Court did not make an explicit finding on whether the agents would have sought a warrant absent the illegal entry, the case is remanded for this determination.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
The evidence should be suppressed. The majority's decision emasculates the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause and undermines the deterrent function of the exclusionary rule by creating an affirmative incentive for illegal 'confirmatory' searches. Police now have an incentive to conduct an illegal warrantless search to see if obtaining a warrant is worthwhile, knowing that if they find contraband, they can subsequently obtain a warrant and have the evidence admitted under the independent source doctrine. The majority's test, which relies on the officers' subjective intent, provides an insufficient safeguard because it is difficult for a defendant to rebut an officer's self-serving testimony that they always intended to get a warrant. To ensure true independence, the finding should be based on 'demonstrated historical facts,' such as proof that the warrant application process had begun before the illegal search occurred.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
The evidence should be suppressed. This decision extends the flawed logic of Segura v. United States, which already created an incentive for unconstitutional searches. The Court has taken another unfortunate step toward a system of 'law enforcement unfettered by process concerns,' sacrificing fundamental constitutional principles in the pursuit of convictions.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and expands the independent source doctrine. It establishes that the doctrine can apply not just to evidence discovered for the first time during a lawful search, but also to evidence first seen during an illegal search and then 'rediscovered' through a subsequent, valid warrant. The decision creates a crucial two-part test for lower courts, focusing on the officers' motivation for seeking the warrant and the information presented to the magistrate. This holding shifts the focus of suppression hearings in such cases to the subjective intent of the officers, which critics argue is difficult to verify and may incentivize police to conduct illegal 'confirmatory' searches before seeking a warrant.
Unlock the full brief for Murray v. United States