No. The evidence found with the warrant is admissible. Think of it like this: the police took a bad path when they illegally entered the apartment. But they also had a completely separate, legal path to get the evidence—the search warrant, which was based on good information they already had. Because this legal 'independent source' led them to the evidence, the evidence isn't spoiled by the earlier illegal entry. It's like the illegal entry had no effect on their ability to get the warrant and find the stuff.

Yes. The evidence should be thrown out. The police didn't just illegally enter; they illegally occupied the apartment for almost a full day. If they hadn't been illegally camping out in the apartment, the people living there could have gotten rid of the drugs and other evidence. So, the only reason the evidence was still there to be found when the warrant arrived was because of the illegal police occupation. By letting the police use this evidence, the court is rewarding them for breaking the law, which encourages them to do it again.

The evidence found with the valid search warrant can be used in court. This is because the warrant was based on information the police had before they illegally entered the apartment. The illegal entry did not lead to or affect the valid warrant. Also, it was okay for the police to secure the apartment from the inside to prevent evidence from being destroyed while they got the warrant.

"[T] he exclusionary rule reaches not only primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure, but also evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or `fruit of the poisonous tree.'"

—explaining that the exclusionary rule is not implicated when the government learned of the challenged evidence from an independent source

—held that evidence seized pursuant to a valid search warrant, which is based on information known to police before the illegal entry and which is wholly unrelated to entry, is not tainted.

—securing a dwelling on the basis of probable cause, to prevent the destruction or removal of evidence, while a search warrant is being sought is not itself an unreasonable seizure of either the dwelling or its contents

Whether the initial entry was illegal or not is irrelevant to the admissibility of the challenged evidence because there was an independent source for the warrant under which that evidence was seized.

Under the exclusionary rule, courts may suppress evidence "obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure" as well as evidence that is the "fruit of the poisonous tree."

—or "the connection between the illegal police conduct and the discovery and seizure of the evidence is `so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.'"

A] seizure reasonable at its inception because based on probable cause may become unreasonable as a result of its duration

The Supreme Court has held that the exclusionary rule reaches evidence "found to be derivative of an illegality or `fruit of the poisonous tree.'"

—concluding that "the home is sacred in Fourth Amendment terms not primarily because of the occupants' possessory interests in the premises, but because of their privacy interests in the activities that take place within

No. Evidence discovered during a search conducted under a valid warrant need not be suppressed as 'fruit' of a prior illegal entry if the warrant and the information on which it was based were wholly unrelated to the entry. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the government has an 'independent source' for the challenged evidence. Here, the information supporting the warrant was known to agents before they entered the apartment and was entirely unconnected to the illegal entry. Therefore, the warrant constituted a 'means sufficiently distinguishable' from the illegality to purge the evidence of any taint. The prior illegal entry did not contribute in any way to the discovery of the evidence seized under the warrant, so not even the 'but for' causation threshold was met. The Court also held that temporarily securing a dwelling from the inside to prevent the destruction of evidence while a warrant is sought, though preceded by an illegal entry, is not an unreasonable seizure of the dwelling's contents.

Yes. The evidence should be suppressed because the illegal 18-20 hour occupation of the apartment was a distinct and unreasonable search and seizure that was the 'but for' cause of the evidence's availability. The dissent argued that the majority improperly focuses only on whether the *information* for the warrant was tainted, ignoring that the police's physical *access* to the evidence was a direct result of their unconstitutional conduct. Had the agents not illegally entered and occupied the home, the occupants could have destroyed or removed the evidence during the long delay before the warrant was executed. By allowing the government to benefit from an illegal seizure that preserved the evidence, the Court creates an incentive for police to violate the Fourth Amendment by entering homes to 'secure' them indefinitely while waiting for a warrant, thus undermining the exclusionary rule's deterrent purpose.

The evidence discovered during the subsequent search of the apartment the following day pursuant to the valid search warrant issued wholly on information known to the officers before the entry into the apartment need not have been suppressed as 'fruit' of the illegal entry because the warrant and the information on which it was based were unrelated to the entry and therefore constituted an independent source for the evidence under Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States. The exclusionary rule does not reach evidence obtained from an independent source, nor does it apply when the connection between the illegal police conduct and the discovery and seizure of the evidence is 'so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.' Furthermore, securing a dwelling on the basis of probable cause, to prevent the destruction or removal of evidence, while a search warrant is being sought is not an unreasonable seizure.

Segura v. United States

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot