2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-21-2006 

# U SA v . M o sley
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-1519

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin

. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . M osley " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 649. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/649T he H on or abl e Thom as M

. R eavl ey , U ni t ed St at es * C i r cui tJ udge fort he Fi ft h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 05- 1519

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RO BE RT M OS L E Y,
A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. N o. 04- cr - 00190) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn R

. Padova

A r gued J une 15, 2006 B efor e: FI SH E R , C H A G A R E S and RE AVL E Y, C i r cui tJudges

.

* ( Fi l ed: J ul y21, 2006)2 D a v id L . M c C o lg in B r et tG

. Sw ei t zer( A r gued) D e f e n d e r A ss o c iatio n o f

P h ilad e lp h ia Feder al C our tD i vi s i on 601 W al nutSt r eet T he C urt i s C enter , S uit e 54 0 W est Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ant
J enni ferA

. W i l l i ams ( A r gued) O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge

. W e a re p rese n ted h ere w ith a ca seb o o k -read yfa ct pa tt ern i m pl i cat i ng an ar ea of

Four t h A m endm entl aw t hathas l ong b e e n a s o u r c e o f c o n f

u s i o n . T o d a ywe e x p l a i n , a s c l e a r l ya s we can, how t he exc l us i onaryrul e appl i es i n cas es i n w hi ch evi d en ce obt ai ned dur i ng an i l l egal t r aff i c s t op i s i nt r oduced agai ns ta pas s engerw i t h no pos s es s or yi nt er es ti n t he vehi cl e. W e h o ld thatw hen a ve hi cl e i s i l l egal l ys t opped byt he pol i ce, no evi dence found dur i ng t he s t op m ay b e u sed byt he3 gov e r n me n t a g a i n s t a n y o c c u p a n t o f t h e v e h i c l e u n l e s s t he governm entcan s how t hatt he t ai ntof t he i l l egal s t op w as pur ged. T he met aphor i cal bubbl e of caus at i on enca ps ul at es t he e n tire v e h icle a n d lin k s th e ille g a lityo f th e sto p to th e F o u rth A m end m ent r i gh t s of al l of the occu pan t s.
I n s o hol di ng, w e j oi n al l of ours i s t erci r cui t s t hathave di r ect l yfac ed thi s i s s ue. W e w i l l canva s s that ca sel aw , and e x p lain w h yw e a g re e w ith it.
I.
O n th e n ig h t o f

O c to b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 3 , R o b e rt M o sle yw e n t to t he D i amond D ol l s ni ght cl ub i n Phi lade lph i a w i t h hi s nephew Je ro m e S m a ll, w h o d ro v e . W h ile t h e yw e re a t th e c lu b , S m a ll re c e iv e d a tele p h o n e c a ll fro m a ro m a n tic a c q u a in tan c e , an d to ld M os l eyt hath e w as l eavi ng t he cl ub t o go m eether

. N ot w ant i ng t o l eave M os l ey w i t hout a r i de home, Sm al l i nt r oduced M os l eyt o hi s fr i end J ul i an H ay es , w ho agr eed t o dr op M os l ey off on hi s w ayhom e. A tar ound 1: 30 a. m . , M os l eyl eftt he cl ub w i t h H ay es and Eri ca S co tt , a danc eratt he cl ub w ho w as acc o m p any i ng H ay es . H ay es and Scot tgoti n t he fr onts eatof H ay es ’ vehi cl e, a g reen Suzuki SU V , and M os l eygoti n t he back.
A taboutt he s ame t i m e, a pol i ce radi o cal l w entout a d v isin g o f

f ice rs to b e o n th e lo o k o u t f o r a bl a c k m a n w ith dr eadl ocks dr i vi ng a gre en S U V

. T he s our ce of t he i nfor m at i on r el ay ed i n t he r adi o cal l i s notr efl ect ed in the r ecor d. Pol i ce offi cer s on patr ol i n t he nei ghbor hood of t he ni ght cl ub hear d t he c a ll a n d sh o rtly th e re a f

ter sa w H a y e s’ S U V , a g re e n S U V w ithT h e ju rysp e c ially f o u n d th a t M o sle y h a d p o ss e ss e d o n ly 1 t he gun that w as on t he s eat i t s el f, and not t he tw o t hatw er e on the f loo r. 4 a bl ack dr i ver , as i tw as pul l i ng aw ayfr om t he ni ght cl ub. T hey i m m edi at el y pul l ed t he car over . U pon appr oachi ng t he ca r , t he r es pondi ng offi cer s obs er ved a gun on the fl oorundert he dr i ver ’ s s eat

. T heyt hen or der ed H ay es , Scot t , and M os l eyt o get outof t he ca r , and s ear ched i t , r ecovering a se cond gun fr om t he fr ont s eat , t w o fr om t he fl oorboar ds of t he back s eat area , an d o n e f

rom the b ac k s e at i tsel f. H ay es a n d M o sleyw ere arr es t ed and c har ged w i t h gun pos s es s i on.
H ow eve r, the Supr eme C our thas hel d t hatanonym ous ti p s d o n o t p ro v ide s u ff ici en t j u sti fica ti o n fo r an inv esti g atory s to p , see Fl or i da v
. J

. L. , 5 2 9 U

. S

. 2 6 6 (20 0 0 ), an d the o ff icers di d notobs er ve H ay es comm i t t i ng anyt r aff i c vi ol at i on t hat w o u ld h av e jus ti fied the s top u n d er W hr en v. U ni t ed Stat es , 517 U

. S. 806 ( 1996)

. T he governm entconce ded that the stop w as i l l egal, and dropp ed all charges againstH ay es.
T he governm entpr ocee ded, how ever , w i t h t he gun po sses si on case against M osl ey , argui ng t hat because he w as a passeng er i n the veh i cl e, he co uld not seek t o s up press t he g un s, not w i t hs t andi ng t he i l l egal i t yof t he s t op. M os l eycont ended t hati ns ofaras he had be en i l l egal l ys ei zed byt he tr aff i c s t op, he s houl d have the s ame suppr es s i on cl ai m as H ay es . T he D i s t r i ct C our tagr eed w i t h t he governm ent , and admi t t ed i nt o evi dence t he g u n s f

o u n d i n t h e b a c k s e a t o f t h e v e h i c l e . M o s l eyw as 1 co n v ict ed u n d er 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 9 2 2 (g) f o r p o s s essin g a f

ir ea rmM osleyh ad a p ri o r fe lon yco n v ict ion fo r bu rglary , w hi ch 2 s uppl i ed the pr edi cat e fort he § 922( g) char ge. M os l eyal s o cont ends , fi r s t , t hatt he evi dence of 3 cons t ru ct i ve pos s es s i on w as i ns uffi ci ent ; s econd, t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr oneous l ys ent ence d h im u n dert he “a r m ed ca ree r c ri m inal” en h an ce m en t pro v isi o n s o f 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 9 2 4 (e); t hi r d, t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed ade quat el y t o det er m i ne w hether M os l ey ’ s pr i orconvi ct i ons w er e “r el at ed” f orpurpos es of ca l cul at i ng hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or yundert he G ui del i nes ; and f o u rth , tha t § 9 2 4 (g ) , th e f e lo n -in -p o ss e ss io n sta tu te, is uncons t i tut i onal under t he C om m er ce C l aus e. A s t o t hes e, t he governm entconce des err or on t he § 924( e) i s s ue, and does not o b ject to r ec o n side rati o n o f th e G u idelines crim ina l h ist o ry c a l c u l a t i o n . Be c a u s e we wi l l o r d e r s u p p r e s s i o n o f t h e g u n s , we d e e m i tu n n e c e s s a r yt o d e c i d e t h e s u f f i c i e n c yq u e s t i o n . An d we acknow l edge thatt he Feder al Publ i c D ef e n d e r ’ s o f

f i c e p r e s e r ves t he C om m er ce C l aus e cha l l enge t o § 922( g) i n or dert o pur s ue cert i or ar i i n t he Supr eme C our t ; w e ar e bound by ourpr i orcas e, U nit ed S t ates v. Singl et ary , 2 6 8 F .3 d 1 9 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ), in w hi ch w e uphel d t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof t he s t atut e. 5 foll ow i ng a fel on y con vict i on . H e app eal s on several groun ds; 2
w e w i l l deci de t he cas e on t he s uppr es s i on i s s ue. “W e r evi ew 3 t he deni al o f

a mot i o n t o s u p p r e s s f o rc l e a re r r o ra s t o t he under l y i ng fac tual det er m i nat i ons and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he appl i cat i on of t he l aw t o t hos e fa ct s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Wi l l i a ms , 4 1 7 F

. 3 d 3 7 3 , 3 7 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ).C o n sid e r th is s c e n a rio : th e p o lice m o u n t an o p e ra tio n in 4
w h ich th e ye re c t a f

a k e “ d ru g c h e c k p o in t” ( w h ich a re f latly il lega l un d er I

ndi anapol is v. E dm ond , 531 U

. S. 32 ( 2000) ) and th e n sta k e o u t th e h ig h w a y e x it ju st b e f o re th e f a k e c h e c k p o in t, v id e o tap e a ll v e h icle s e x iti n g th e re , an d p u ll o v e r a n yv e h icle t hatvi ol at es a tr affi c l aw ( forexampl e, fai l i ng t o s i gnal att he exi t tur n)

. T he pr act i ce w as uphel d t hi s y eari n U ni t ed St at es v. R odr iguez - Lopez , 4 4 4 F

. 3 d 1 0 2 0 (8th C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). M o re 6 II. Wh e n o n e p e ru s e s t h e t r a f f i c - s t o p s u p p r e s s i o n c a s e l a w, one i s s t ruck byhow r ar el y a t r aff i c s t op i s found t o have be en i l l egal

. I n U

ni t ed States v. W

hr en , 517 U

. S. 806 ( 1996) , t he Supr eme C our tes t abl i s hed a br i ght

- l i ne rul e t hatanyt echni cal v io latio n o f

a tra f f ic c o d e leg iti m ize s a sto p , ev e n if th e sto p is m er el ypr et extforan i nves t i gat i on of s om e o ther cr i m e. A nd once a carhas been l egal l ys t opped, t he pol i ce may“e sca lat e” t he enc ount erby vi s ual l y i ns pect i ng t he i nt er i orof t he ca r , and c h e c k in g c re d e n tia ls a n d a s k in g q u e s tio n s o f th e o c c u p a n ts

. See U ni t ed St at es v. G i van , 320 F. 3d 452, 458 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( “A ft er a tr aff i c st o p t hatw as j us t i fi ed ati t s i ncept i on, an off i cerw ho d e v e lo p s a re a so n a b le, a rticu lab le su sp icio n o f c rim in a l ac tiv ity m ayexpand the s cope of an i nqui ry b ey o n d t he r eas on fort he s t op and det ai n t he vehi cl e and it s occupa nt s forfur t her i nves t i gat i on . ”). Court s gi ve cons i der abl e def er ence t o pol i ce o f f ic e rs ’ d e te rm in a tio n s o f re a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n , s ee , e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. N

el s on 284 F. 3d 472, 482 ( 3d C ir

. 2002) , and t he cas es ar e s t eadi l y i ncr eas i ng t he cons t i tut i onal l at i tude of the po l i ce t o p ull ov er vehi cl es. 4famousl y , i n U nit ed S t ates v. A rvi

zu , 534 U

. S. 266 ( 2002) , t he Supr eme C our tr ever s ed the N i nt h C i r cui t ’ s det er m i nat i on t hat a B or derPat r ol offi cer had gone t oo far i n bas i ng a tr aff i c s t op of a f ami l yvan on hi s obs er vat i on t hatt he ki ds had w aved at h im “ m e c h a n ic a lly.” T he “s t andi ng” i nqui r y , i n the F our t h A m endment 5 co n text, is sho rt h an d fo r t h e d eterm ination o f w h ethe r a litig a n t’ s F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts h a v e b e e n im p lic a te d

. See U n ited S ta tes v . K im b a ll , 25 F

. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st C i r. 19 94 ) ( “W e use t he t er m ‘ s t andi ng’ as a s hor t hand met hod of r efe r r i ng t o t he i s s ue of w hethert he def endant ’ s ow n Four t h A m endment i nt er es t s wer e i mpl i c a t e d b yth e c h a l l e n ged governm ent al act i on. ‘Tech nical l y , t he co ncep tof “st and i ng ” has no thad a place in Four t h A m endment j ur i s prudence form or e than a de cade , s i nce t he S upr eme C our ti n R a ka s v . Ill in o is , 439 U

. S. 128, 58 L

. E d. 2d 387, 99 S. C t

. 421 ( 1978) , i ndi cat ed thatm at t er s of s t andi ng i n t he cont extof s ear ches and s ei zur es actual l yi nvol ved su b stan ti v e F o u rt h A m en d m en t law

. ’ U ni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez , 9 4 3 F

. 2 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 3 n . 1 (1st C ir

. 1 9 9 1 ). ”). 7 Pas s enger s i n car s , unl i ke ow ner s orl i cens ees , have no re a so n a b le e x p e c tatio n o f p riv a c yin th e in ter io r o f th e v e h icle in w h ich th eyare ri d in g . B ec au se th e F o u rt h A m en d m en t’ s pr ot ect i on agai ns tu n rea sonabl e s ear ches i s pr edi cat ed on the i nv asio n b ythe g o v ern m en t of a p erso n ’s reaso n ab le expect at i on o f p riv a c y , p a ss e n g e rs a re g e n e ra llyh e ld to lac k “ sta n d in g ” to 5 o b je c t to e v id e n c e d is c o v e re d i n a s e a rc h o f a v e h ic le

. See R a ka s v . Ill in o is , 439 U

. S. 128 ( 197 8 ). F o ur t h A m endment r i ght s ar e per s onal r i ght s , and a s ear ch of a ca rdoes notW hi l e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s opi ni on i s n o te n t i r el ycl earon 6 this po int, w e re ad itto su g g est t h at th e D istri ct C o u rt ana l y t i c a l l y s e p a r a t e d t h e d e t e n t i o n o f t h e v e h i c l e f r om t he r emoval and det ent i on o f M os l ey ’ s per s on, and bel i eved that o n lyt he lat t er const i tuted a sei zure of M osl eyfor Fo u rth A m endment purpos es . T he D i s t r i ct C our t s t at ed, forexampl e, t hat “[f ] orpurpos es of t he i ns t antM ot i on [t o s uppr es s ] , t he G o v ern m en t con ce d es th at t h e o ff ic e rs v iolated D ef

en d an t’ s Four t h A m endment r i ght s byr emovi ng hi m fr o m th e vehi cl e and d e ta in in g h im in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e s to p o f th e v e h ic le .” T he Four t h A m endment vi ol at i on, how ever , w as t he tr af fic sto p its e lf, an d n o t j u st M o sley ’s rem o v al fro m the c ar. W e w i sh t o rei t erat e t his po i nt fort he b enef i tof f utur e l i t i gan t s: a F o u rth A m e n d m e n t se izu re o f e v e ry o c c u p a n t o f

a v e h icle occur s t he mom entt hatvehi cl e i s pul l ed overbyt he pol i ce. T he leg a lityo f th e s e izu re d e p e n d s u p o n th e leg a lityo f th e tra f f ic s t op. 8 i m pl i cat e the r i ght s of non- ow nerpas s enger s : t he ca ri s t r eat ed co n ce p tuallyli k e a large p iece o f c lothing w o rn b ythe d ri v er.
B ut w e shou l d no t be d i stract ed b yt he fa ctt hat this case i nvol ves evi dence found i n a car . T hi s i s not an “aut o sea rch” cas e. T he s ear ch of the ca ri s notbefor e us ; t he s ei zur e of M os l eyi s . T hi s cas e i s aboutan i l l egal s ei zur e by t he pol i ce of t he def endant , pur s uantt o w hi ch evi dence w as di s cover ed. T he v io latio n o f

M o sle y ’s F o u rth A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts w a s th e tra f f ic s t op i t s el f, and i ti s s et t l ed l aw t hata tr aff i c s t op i s a s ei zur e of e v e r yo n e in th e s to p p e d v e h ic le , see D el aw are v. P rouse , 440 U

. S. 648, 653 ( 1979)

. T hus pas s enger s i n an i l l egal l ys t opped 6For t he mostcom p rehe ns i ve col l ect i on of ca s es , s ee 6 7 W a yn e R . L a F a v e , Sea rch an d S eizure § 11. 3 ( 4t h ed. 2004) (c itin g , in te r a lia , U

ni t ed St at es v. G r ant , 3 4 9 F

. 3 d 1 9 2 (5th C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ); U ni t ed St at es v. A m el i ng , 3 2 8 F

. 3 d 4 4 3 (8th C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. G am a- B as t i das , 1 4 2 F

. 3 d 1 2 3 3 (10 th C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ); U nit ed S t ates v. So w ers , 1 3 6 F

. 3 d 2 4 (1 st C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. R us her , 9 6 6 F

. 2 d 8 6 8 (4th C ir

. 1 9 9 2 )). 9 v e h icle h a v e “ sta n d in g ” to o b jec t to th e sto p , a n d m a yse e k to 7 s uppr es s t he evi dent i aryfrui t s o f thati l l egal s ei zur e undert he frui tof t he poi s onous t r ee doc t r i ne, as expounded i n t he l i ne of cas es fol l ow i ng W

ong Sun v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 371 U

. S. 471 (1 9 6 3 ). T h e d isp o sitiv e leg a l issu e is th e c a u sa l re la ti o n sh ip betw een the tr aff

ic s t op and the di s coveryof t he evi dence : w hethert he evi dence found i n t he car w as “frui t ” of t he i l l egal sto p . T h e q u e stio n th a t b e d e v iled th e p ro c e e d in g s b e lo w is w hethert he evi dence found i n t he ca r w as caus al l yl i nked t o t he il lega l sei zu re o f M o sley , the p asse n g er. In a n a lyzi n g that ca u sal co n n ec ti o n , the D istri ct C o u rt re lie d o n a T e n th C i r c u it c a s e , U ni t ed Stat es v. D eLuca , 269 F .3 d 1 1 2 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ), in w h ich a p a ss e n g e r s o u g h t to s uppr es s evi dence found dur i ng a tr aff i c s t op. T aki ng i t s cue f rom th a t ca se , the D istric t C o u rt p ro p o se d v a rio u s h yp o th e tica ls to test th e “ fa ctua l nex u s” b etw ee n th e v iolati o n o f M o sley ’s Four t h A m endment r i ght s and the di s covery o f t he evi dence

. Speci fi cal l y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tponder ed w hether , i f M os l eyhad as ked forand r ece i ved perm i s s i on t o l eave t he s cene i m m edi at el yaft ert he ca rw as s t opped, t h e ev idence i n t he ca r wou l d s t i l l h a v e b e e n d i s c o v e r e d

. Si n c e t h e a n s wert o t h at10 ques t i on i s obvi ous l y “y es , ” the D i s t r i ctC our trul ed thatM os l ey had fa i l ed t o demonst r at e an adequa t e “fac tual nexus ” betw een t he i ll eg al governm entact i on and the di s coveryof t he c h a llen g e d e v id e n c e . A lth o u g h th e g o v e r n m e n t h a d c lea rly v iolated M o sley ’s F o u rt h A m en d m en t ri g h ts, the D istri ct C o u rt det er m i ned thatt he s peci fi c vi ol at i on of M o sley ’ s r i ght s – as op po sed t o H ay es’ ri gh t s – did n ot have a suff i ci entl ycl ose caus al connec t i on, or“fa ctual nexus , ” t o t he di s cov ery o f t he e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r tM o s l e y ’ s s u p p r e s s i o n c l a i m.
T he gene r al r equi r ement of a “fa ctual nexus ” betw een a s peci fi c Four t h A m endm entvi ol at i on and a s peci fi c pi ece of evi dence d erive s fr om t w o Supr eme C our tcas es on w i r et ap evi dence

. In t hos e ca s es , t he governm enthad gather ed t hous ands of di s cr et e pi ece s of evi d en ce o verm anym ont hs of i nves t i gat i on. O vert he cour s e of t he i nves t i gat i on, t he governm entcomm i t t ed var i ous i l l egal act s , and t he ques t i on for the C o u rtw as h o w to d eterm ine w h ich p iece s o f e v iden ce w ere ta in te d b y th e p a rt ic u la r i lle g a l a c tio n s . See U ni t ed Stat es v. N ar done , 3 0 8 U .S . 3 3 8 , 3 4 1 (1 9 3 9 ); U ni t ed St at es v. A lder m an , 394 U

. S. 165, 183 ( 1969)

. B eca us e of the mul t i pl i ci t yand compl exi t y of t he i nves t i gat i on and t he evi dence , t her e w as no c o m m on sense causal rel at i on shi p b etw een an ygiven F ou rt h A m endment vi ol at i on and anygi ven pi ece of evi dence

. R ather t han ho l d all t he ev i den ce t o h ave been t ai nted byt he v i olat i on s, th e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e p ro p e r c o u rse is f o r d istric t co u rts to p ro b e m o re d e e p ly , an d e m p lo yth o u g h t ex p e rim e n ts to det er m i ne w hi ch vi ol at i on w as causa l l yconnec t ed t o w hi chT h e tes t h a s sin c e b e e n a p p lied b yth e N in th C irc u it i n 8 c o m p le x c a s e s in v o lv in g o n g o in g p o lic e in v e s tig a tio n s . See , e. g. , U n itedS ta tes v . Ka n d ik , 6 3 3 F

. 2 d 1 3 3 4 (9th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ); U nit ed S t ates v. A llard , 6 0 0 F .2 d 1 3 0 1 (9 th C ir. 1 9 7 9 ); U ni t ed S ta tes v . C e lla , 5 6 8 F

. 2 d 1 2 6 6 (9th C ir

. 1 9 7 7 ). 11 piece of evidence. T hese cases exp ress the co m m on sense 8 pr opos i t i on t hata s i ngl e Four t h A m endment vi ol at i on does not tain t an e n tire c a se , b u t o n lyth e e v id e n c e u n c o v e re d a s a re su lt of t hatvi ol at i on.
Pr i ort o D eL uca , cour t s had notgener al l yt houghtt hat tr af fic stop s p rese n ted s u ff ici en tl yco m p lex in v esti g atory co n texts to w arran t su ch an ad d ed lay er of ca u sal an aly sis. In D eLuca , how ever , a pane l of t he Tent h C i r cui t , o v er a hea t ed di s s entbyfor m erC hi ef J udge Seym o u r, appl i ed that count er fac tual – “W hat i f?” – appr oach t o a s uppr es s i on m ot i on br oughtbya pas s engerw h o w as i l l egal l ydet ai ned dur i ng a tra f f ic s to p . T h e a p p lica tio n o f “ f a c tu a l n e x u s” h yp o th e tica ls to a tra f f ic s to p s u p p re ss io n c a se w a s a n o v e l id e a . T h e m a jo rity v iew in the circu it s w as an d rem ains that in a tr af fic stop , there w i l l al w ay s be a s uffi ci ent“nexus ” betw een the st op and the s ear ch, unl es s t her e ar e si gni fi cant i nt er veni ng event s t hats ever or at t enu at e t he cau sal chain. T here i s ge n e ra llyno “nex us” p ro b lem in ill e g a l tra f

f ic sto p c a se s, a s th e lea d in g tre a tise p u ts i t , beca us e the conne ct i on betw een the i l l egal act i on and the di s coveryof t he evi dence i s s tr ai ght for w ar d: I f t he pol i ce ha d not pul l ed over t he vehi cl e, t hey w oul d nothave di s cover ed the e v id e n c e . See 6 W a yn e R . L a F a v e , Sea rch an d S eizure § 1 1

. 4 (d) (4 th ed

. 2 0 0 4 ) (sum m arizing ca selaw ).In f a c t th is is n o t s u c h a n u n u su a l o c c u rre n c e . A tra f f ic 9 sto p re q u ire s o n ly re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to b e liev e th a t a tra f f ic vi ol at i on has been c om m i t t ed. B ut det ai ni ng t he vehi cl e l onger t han i s nece s s aryt o eff ectuat e t h e l egi t i m at e r es pons e t o t hat t r aff i c vi ol at i on r equi r es i ndepende nts us pi ci on t hat s om e other crim e is a fo o t. T h e tr an sit ion fro m tr af fic stop to inv esti g atory s to p is t h e f

o c a l p o in t o f

m a n ys u p p re s s io n c a s e s . See , e. g. , I l l i nois v. C abal l es , 5 4 3 U

. S

. 4 0 5 , 4 0 7 (U

. S

. 2 0 0 5 ) (“A seizu re t hati s j us t i fi ed sol el y by t he i nt er es t i n i s s ui ng a w arni ng t i cket t o t he dr i vercan become unl aw ful i f i ti s pr ol onged bey ond t he ti m e re aso n ab lyreq u ir ed to co m p let e tha t m issi o n . ”). 12 W e c an u n d erstan d w hythe D eLuca m aj or i t yt houghtt hat t he ca s e r equi r ed s om e r evi s i on t o t he tr adi t i o n a l frui t s anal y t i cal a p p a ra tu s . D eLuca d id n o t i n v o lve a n il lega l traf f ic s to p . It i nvol ved i ns t ead a l egal t r aff i c st op t hatbeca m e i l l egal w hen the pol i ce c ont i nued t o det ai n t he vehi cl e and i t s occupa nt s aft ert he l egit i m at e pu rposes of t he st op had been com plet ed. B ecause 9 t he s t op i t s el f w as l egal , t he courtr eas oned thatw hat ever governm entact i ons vi ol at ed the defenda nt ’ s r i ght s m us tbe a n a lytica lly se p a ra b le f ro m th e tra f

f ic sto p . T h e F o u rth A m endment vi ol at i on i n D eLuca w as t he det ent i on of t he d ef en d an t pas sen g er, al o n g w ith the oth er oc cu p an ts o f th e c ar, bey ond t he per i od nece s s ary t o compl et e t he l egi t i m at e purpos es of t he s t op. B utatt he poi ntt hat t he det ent i on of t he def endant pas s engerbeca m e i l l egal , t he pol i ce al r eady had cont r ol overt he vehi cl e. T he courtt her efor e t r i ed t o t eas e outt he ca us al eff i cac y of t he pr eci s e i l l egal i t y r ai s ed byt he def endantpas s enger . T he cour t as ked w hether , i f t he pas s engerhad bee n al l ow ed t o l eave t he s cene befor e the det ent i on beca m e i l l egal , t he i ncr i m i nat i ngE v e n o n its lim ite d f a c ts , DeL u ca w as not 10 uncontr over s i al

. For m erC hi ef J udge Seym our issue d a b lis te ri n g d is s e n t, c a llin g th e m a jo ri ty’s re a s o n in g “ lu d ic ro u s ,” and P rofessor L aF ave con curr ed i n t hat assess m ent. T he m ost s er i ous cr i t i ci s m i s t hat t he count er fac tual m ethodol ogy“for ces t he def endantt o di s pr ove i nevi t abl e di s covery and does an end ru n a ro u n d th e g o v e rn m e n t’s b u rd e n o f p ro o f o n in e v itab le di s covery . ” D eLuca , a t 2 6 9 F .3 d a t 1 1 4 5 n .1 (S e y m o u r, J ., d issen ti n g ). 13 evi dence w o u ld st i l l have be en di s cover ed. T he ans w erw as “y es ”: i t w as n’ t hi s car , s o hi s l eavi ng w oul d nothave r emoved t he evi dence

. Th e q u e s t i o n i n D eL uca w as t hus w hethert he pol i ce w oul d s t i l l have di s cover ed the cha l l enged e vi dence i f theyhad l e tt h e p a s s e n g e rg o b e f o r e d o i n g a n y t h i n g i l l e g a l t o h i m. On t he D eLuca fac t s , i f t he pol i ce had l et t he pas s engergo aft ert he i ni t i al l egal s t op butbefor e the subs equenti l l egal pr ol ongat i on o f t h e s t o p , t h e n n o t h i n g i l l e g a l wo u l d h a v e b e e n d o n e t o h i m – a n d th e e v iden ce w o u ld sti ll h av e b ee n d isco v ere d

. T h ere fo re th e p a ss e n g e r h a d n o su p p re ss io n c laim . S o re a so n e d th e T e n th C irc u it. 10

B u t w e a g re e w ith M o sle yth a t D eLuca i s i n a p p os i t e her e. T he hypot het i cal , and the hol di ng, ar e r el evantonl yt o s i tuat i ons i n w hi ch t he i ni t i al t r aff i c s t op i s l egal , and t hat i s notourcas e. W e expr es s no opi ni on on t he vi abi l i t yi n t hi s C i r cui tof t he D eLuca t es ton D eLuca fac t s ; w e deci de t he cas e befor e us, notW e w il l notbe over l ycoy , t hough: w e r ecogni ze that 11 t he r at i onal e for ourhol di ng m i ghtbe thoughtt o under m i ne the D eLuca r at i onal e eve n on D eLuca fac t s . B utt he prece di ng s ent ence i s di ct a; w hen an a ppr opr i at e ca s e ari s es , t he part i es m aydo w hatt heyw i l l w i t h ourdeci s i on her e. 14 a differ ent one. B ut w hatever i t s vi abil i tyon app ropri at e facts , 11 th is c a se d o e s n o t p re se n t su c h f a c ts. If th e in iti a l tra f

f ic s to p is i l l egal , t hen eve n i f t he pass enger i s al l ow ed t o l eave t he s cene befor e t he s ear ch, i t w i l l not be t he cas e t hat t he pol i ce ha ve not vi ol at ed hi s Four t h A m endm en t ri ght s . W her e the tr aff i c s t op it sel f i s i l l egal, i t i s si m ply i m po ssi ble for t he poli ce t o o b tain the c h all en g ed ev iden ce w ith o u t violati n g the p asse n g er’s F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts

. D eLuca s ay s n o t hi ng abouts uch si tuati on s.
T he Tent h C i r cui ti t s el f has addr es s ed the ques t i on w h ethe r D eLuca a p p lies to tr a f f ic s to p s illeg a l f

ro m th e ir ince p ti o n , an d stat ed clea rl y that it d o es n o t. Itap p li es, t h e c o u rt expl ai ned i n a r ece nts uppr es s i on cas e appl y i ng D eLuca , o n lyto cas es i n w hi ch the i l l egal pol i ce conduct occurr ed af t ert heA nd t he same i s t rue of a n ear l i erT enth C i r cui tcas e, 12 U ni t ed St at es v. N

ava- R am i r ez , 2 1 0 F

. 3 d 1 1 2 8 (10 th C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ), ci t ed i n D eLuca : “N a v a -R a m ire z d o e s n o t co n tes t th e leg a lity of t he i ni t i al s t op. R ather , h e arg ues t hatatt he mom ent[t he off i c e r ] c o n c l u d e d h i s s e a r c h o f t h e p a s s e n g e rc o mpa r t me nt w i t houtfi ndi ng anyevi dence i ndi cati ng N ava- R ami r ez w as i n v o l v e d i n i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y , h i s c o n t i n u e d d e t e n t i o n b e c a me unl aw ful

. ” That fac tual s et t i ng – i ni t i al l y l egal s t op, s ubs equent i l l egal det ent i on of pas s enger– i s t he underpi nni ng and nece s s arycondi t i on fort he D eLuca -typ e “ f a c tu a l n e x u s ” tes t. I thas abs ol ut e l yno appl i cat i on t o s i tuat i ons w her e the pas s enger chal l enges t he l egal i t yof t he i ni t i al s t op. 15 pol i ce ha d l egal l y gai ned contr ol of t he vehi cl e. T he t empora l 12 se q u e n c e o f

e v e n ts m a k e s a ll th e d if f e re n c e , sa id th e c o u rt: [ W ong Sun ] a n d its p ro g e n y , s ee , e. g. , U ni t ed S ta tes v . Me len d ez-G a rc ia , 28 F. 3d 1 0 46, 1 0 5 3

- 5 4 ( 1 0 th C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ) , a r e re a d ily di s t i ngui s habl e i ns ofar as i n t hos e cas es t he i l l egal pol i ce c onductpr ece ded the means byw hi ch the e v i d e n c e was o b t a i n e d , th u s e s t a b l i s h i n g t he r equi s i t e fac tual nexus betw een the evi dence and t he i l l egal conduct

. B ycontr as t , anyun law ful p o li ce ac ti v ityh ere o cc u rre d af ter vo lun tary cons enthad been obt ai ned. C ons equent l y , [t he defendant ] coul d notes t abl i s h t hat , butfort he al l eged i l l egal s ei zur e, t he evi dence w oul d not h a v e c o m e t o l i g h ta s r e q u i r e d b y D eLuca

.T he R o b e rts c a s e , t o b e s u r e , i s u n p u b l i s h e d , b u twe 13 t hi nk t he rece n t l yadopt ed amendm entt o Fed. R

. A pp. Pr oc. 3 2 (a ) c o n f

irm s th e u til ityo f

lo o k in g to u n p u b lish e d c a se s to det er m i ne how pr ece dent i al cas es ar e appl i ed. W her e, as her e, a n N P O c lar if

ies th e a p p lica tio n o f

a p rio r p re c e d e n t, alm o st a ll t he ci r cui t s al l ow i t s ci t at i on byt he parti es, and w e w i l l not needl es s l ydepr i ve our s el ves of us eful gui dance on t he s cope of t h e c a s e l a w t h a tg o v e r n e d t h i s c a s e b e l o w. 16 U n itedS ta tes v . R o b e rts , 9 1 F ed

. A p p x . 6 4 5 , 6 4 8 (10 th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ).
T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of D eLuca t o t he ca s e at bar , i n w hi ch t he i l l egal pol i ce c onductpr ece ded the means by w hi ch the evi dence w as obt ai ned, w as err or , beca us e eve n under t he Tent h C i r cui t ’ s hei ghtene d “fa ctual nexus ” t es t , s uch a tem p o ra l sc e n a rio w o u ld a p p e a r t o c lea rly su p p ly th e re q u isite

“ f a c tu a l n e x u s .” 13
Iti s cl ear, so far, t hat an i l l egal t raffi c st op con st i tutes a s ei zur e of a l l occupa nt s of a ve hi cl e, i ncl udi ng pas s enger s , and t hatw h at evert he ut i l i t yof t he D eLuca c o u n ter f a c tu a l an a ly sis t o fac tp att ern s n otbefor e us , i ti s nott he pr operanal y t i cal m od el for t he case thati s befo re us.17 III . A.
Four t h A m endm entr i ght s ar e per s onal r i ght s . T hat pr opos i t i on i s noti n di s pute. T he pr obl em i s t hatfr om t hat p r o p o s i t i o n , t h e r e s u l ti n a n y p a r t i c u l a rc a s e i s n o ta l w a ys i m m edi at el yobvi ous . M os l eydoes n o t d ispu t e thathe had no per s onal expec t at i on of pr i vacy i n t he i nt er i or of t he car ; the g o v e r n m e n t d o e s n o t d isp u te th a t h e d id h a v e a re a so n a b le expec t at i on t hathe w oul d not be sei zed w i t houtpr obabl e ca us e. T he pr obl em i s w hether t he evi dence i n t hi s cas e w as di s cover ed as a r es ul tof hi s s ei zur e. A s w e w i l l det ai l bel ow , m os tcour t s t r eatevi dence found dur i ng an i l l egal t r aff

i c s t op as t he frui t s of thats t op, and s ee no conce ptual di ffi cul t i es i n s uppr es s i ng s uch e v ide nce w hen i nt r oduced a gai ns tpas s enger s . O urm os tr ece ntdeci s i on t o fac e s u c h a s c e n a ri o , Un i t e d

S t a t e s v
. Wi l l i a ms , 4 1 3 F

. 3 d 3 4 7 (3d C ir

. 2005) , conce r ned a non- ow nerpas s en g eri n a parked van that w a s app roached byt w o p oli ce of fi cers , w ho subsequ entl y obs er ved contr aband i n t he vehi cl e. T he def endantcl ai m ed that t he appr oach cons t i tut ed a s ei zur e. W e fr amed t he s uppr es s i on i ssue as fol l ow s:
T he ce nt r al i s s ue on appe al

. . . i s w hether W i l l i ams w as s ei zed w i t hi n t he meani ng of t he F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t w h e n t h e p o lic e . . . appr oache d t he van. I f W i l l i ams w as “s ei zed” by t he pol i ce w hen theyapproa ched t he parked van w ith o u t p ro b a b le c a u se o r re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to18 do s o, t hen the D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l ys uppr es s ed al l evi dence obt ai ned i n connec t i on w i t h t he ens ui ng arr es tunder the “frui t s of t he poi s onous t r ee” doctr i ne. 41 3 F

. 3d at35 1. O ur ap proach can b e sum m ari zed as fo l l ow s: W e ask, fi r s t , w he t he r t he r e w a s a s e i z ur e . I f s o, t he n w e ask w h ethe r t h ere w as re aso n ab le su sp ici o n o r pr o b ab le ca u se. If not , t hen s uppr es s i on i s pr operunl es s t he gover nm entcan s how t hat t he t ai nt w as pur ged. W e di d noteven c om m enti n Wi l l i a ms on t he “c aus al nexus ” b etw een the al l eged s ei zur e and the di s cov ery of evi dence ; on t hes e fa ct s w e t ook t hatnexus t o be se lf -e v id e n t.
H o w e v e r, th e q u o ted p a ss a g e is d ic ta b e c a u se w e h e ld bot h t hatt he appr oach w as not a s ei zur e and thatt he off i cer s had r eas onabl e s us pi ci on s uffici entfora T erry sto p in a n ye v e n t. T he vehi cl e w as par ked i n a publ i c pl ace and t he offi cer s di d not m ake a s how of for ce, and “l aw enfor cementoffi cer s do not v io la te th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t’s p ro h ib iti o n o f u n re a so n a b le se izu re s m e re lyb ya p p ro a c h in g in d iv id u a ls o n th e stre e t o r in o the rpubl i c pl ace s . ” I d. at352 ( quot i ng Uni t e d S t a t e s v. D r ayt on , 5 3 6 U

. S

. 1 9 4 , 2 0 0 (20 0 2 )).
T hough di ct a, t he ana l y t ical appr oach s ugges t ed by Wi l l i a ms i s cons i s t entw i t h t he appr oach pr opos ed byt he l eadi ng Four t h A m endment t r eat i s e.
In th e typ ica l ca se in w h ich a n ill e g a l ar re st is fol l ow ed bya s ear ch no “f ruit s ” pr obl em of any m agni tude i s pr es ent ed.

. . . T hi s i s d ir ec t r ather19 t han der i vat i ve evi dence , and ther e i s no occa s i on t o be conc erned aboutt he l i m i t s of t he frui tof t he poi s onous t r ee doc t r i ne. . . . Pr obl ems of thi s ki nd ar i s e i n t he cont extof pas s enger s i n vehi cl es a ttem p tin g to h a v e e v id e n c e f o u n d th e r e in s uppr es s ed .

. . . [T]he p as s engerw i l l cl ai m t hat t he s u b s e q u e n td i s c o v e r yo f t h e e v i d e n c e i n t he vehi cl e w as a frui tof hi s p ri ori l l egal det ent i on. It is v e ry o

ften th e c a se th a t su c h a c o n n e c tio n is r eadi l y m ade out

w hen the i ni t i als t oppi ng of the v e h icle (an d

th u s a ll o f th e o c c u

p a n ts) w a s illeg a l.
6 L a F a v e , supra , § 1 1

. 4 (d) (em p h asis ad d ed ).
W e hav e no t , ho w ever, y ethad occasi on t o d eci de a ca se r equi r i ng a pr eci s e ar t i cul at i on of t he appl i cat i on of t he frui tof t he poi s onous t r ee doctr i ne t o evi dence found dur i n g il l egal t r a f f i c s t o p s w h e n i n t r o d u c e d a g a i n s tv e h i c l e p a s s e n g e r s . We wi l l t h e r e f

o r e s t a t e t h e t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e a s p e r s p i c u o u s l ya s we can: I s an i l l egal t r aff

i c s t op of a c aroccupi ed b y a dr i verand a passeng er a s i ng l e con st i tuti on al viol at i on , w i t h tw o v i ct i m s, eac h of w hom can s eek t o suppr es s al l frui t s of t hatvi ol at i on? O ri s i tanal y t i cal l ys epar abl e i nt o t w o i ndi vi dual cons t i tut i onal v io latio n s, e a c h w ith o n e v ictim , ea c h o f w h o m m a yse e k to su p p re ss o n ly th e f

ru its o f th e v io latio n o f

h is in d iv id u a l rig h t? T o d a ywe e n d o r s e t h e f o r me rp r o p o s i t i o n , b u ta s we a c k n o w led g e th e lo g ica l ap p e a l o f th e latte r p ro p o sitio n , w e w ill s e to u tt h e b e s ta r g u me n t s i n i t s f a v o r , a n d t h e n e x p l a i n wh ywe a r e r e j e c t i n g t h e m.A c tu a llyth re e se izu re s o c c u r, b e c a u se th e c a r itse lf is 14 al s o s ei zed. B utonl yt he per s onal s ei zur es ar e r el evantt o t he a rg u m e n t. 20 1.
T h e “ an a lyti c se p ara ti o n ” p o sit ion , the p o sit ion w e a re r ej ecti n g , can be def

ended both on l ogi cal gr ounds and vi a a reduct i o ad absurdu m . H e re a re t he logi cal groun ds. B ecause Four t h A m endment r i gh t s ar e per s onal r i ght s , w hen the pol i ce p u l l o v e ra c a rwi t h a d r i v e r a n d a n o n - o wn e rp a s s e n g e r , t wo ind ividu al seizu res oc cu r sim u lt an eo u sly : sei zu re o f th e d ri v er, and s ei zur e of the pas s enger . T hus , w e s ho u l d nots ee the 14 t r a f f i c s t o p a s o n e d i s c r e t e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n ( w i t h t wo vi c t i ms ) , b u tr a t h e ra s t wo s e p a r a t e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o ns ( eac h w i t h one vi ct i m )

. B eca us e frui t s anal y s i s al w ay s pr ocee ds fr om t he s peci fi c cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on i nfl i ct ed on the defe n dan t , t his analyt i c separat i on of v i olat i on s necessi t at es a concomi t ant s epar at i on of t he r es pect i ve fruit s suppr es s i on anal y s es . B ec au se th e v iolati o n o f th e p asse n g er’s co n sti tuti o n al r i ght s w as t h e s ei zur e of the pas s enger( anal y t i cal l ys epar at ed f ro m th e se izu re o f th e d riv e r), w e m u st a sk , in a n yf ru its anal y s i s , w hether t he chal l enged evi dence w as s ei zed as a ca us al r es ul tof t he s ei zur e of the pas s enger . T o getat th e i nt er i orof t he car , w her e t he evi dence i s l ocat ed, t he pol i ce mustper for ce s ei ze the dri ver and t he pas s enger , bys t oppi ng t he ca r . B utt hat one ac t cons t i tut es t w o s epar at e sei zur es . T he pas s engerw as not i n contr ol of t he car , s o i t i s t he sei zur e of t he dri ver , and not t he p a ss e n g e r, th a t is re q u ir e d in o rd e r f o r th e p o lice to o b tain contr ol overt he ca r . T he pas s enger ’ s pr es ence has no eff ecton21 t he abi l i t y of t he pol i ce t o s ei ze t he dr i ver and contr ol t he c ar. T hus t he evi dence i n t he ca rw oul d be found w hetherornott he pas s engerw as pr es ent i n t he car at al l

. Sei zur e of t he pas s enger i s , acc or di ngl y , l ogi cal l yanci l l aryt o t he s ear ch of t he vehi cl e. Itis l o g icall yn ec essa ryo n lyfo r a se a rc h o f th e p asse n g er’s per s on. O n t hi s vi ew , t her efor e, evi dence found i n t he ca r , but noton t he pas s enger ’ s p erso n, cannotbe s uppr es s ed byt he pas s enger , even though t he s ei zur e of the pas s engerw as u n c o n stitu tio n a l.
S o m e sim p le h yp o th e ti c a ls b rin g o u t th e f o rc e o f th is a rg u m e n t. S u p p o se th a t th e c a r sto p s a n d X , a p a ss e n g e r, g e ts outatt he corner . J us tas t he car begi ns t o pul l aw ay , t he pol i ce, ac ti n g o n an an o n y m o u s ti p , roa r u p an d stop the c ar, s i m ul t aneous l yor der i ng X , on t he s i dew al k, t o fr eez e. E vi dence i s found i n t he car but i s s uppr es s ed as t o t he dr i verbeca us e the s t o p w a s i l l e g a l

. I ti s t h e n i n t r o d u c e d a g a i n s tX

. M a y X su p p re ss ? C e rta in lyn o t. T h e tw o se izu re s a re c lea rlyse p a ra te caus al event s forFourth A m endment purpos es . N orcan X chal l enge a sea r ch of t he car , no m at t erhow i l l egal , beca us e he h as n o p ri v ac yinterest i n the c ar. N ow putX back i n t he ca r . W hati s t he l egal s i gni fi canc e o f th a t ch a n g e o f p lac e ? T h e m o st o b v io u s d if f e re n c e is th a t it becomes phy s i cal l yi m pos s i bl e fort he pol i ce t o s t op t he car( and d etain the d ri v er) w ith o u t al so seizing an d d etaining X

. B u t X ’s l ega l si tuat i on w i t h r es pectt o t he ca rand dr i verr emai ns t he s ame: as a pas s enger , hi s pr i vacyi nt er es tin the i nt er i orof t he cari s pr eci s el yw hati tw as w hen he w as s t andi ng on t he sid e w a lk – z e ro . T h u s, ju st a s X ’s s e izu re o n th e sid e w a lk cannotl ogi cal l yorl egal l yhave be en a caus e of t he di s coveryofU nl es s , of cour s e, t h e il le gal i t yi s r es t r i ct ed t o a 15 vi ol at i on of t he knock- and- announce rul e, i n w hi ch ca s e no one, n o t e v e n th e o w n e r, c a n s u p p re s s . See H uds on v. Mi chi

gan , 547 U

. S

. --- (20 0 6 ). 22 evi dence i ns i de the car , nei t her can hi s s ei zur e w hi l e i ns i de the caras a pass enger be a l ogi cal orl egal caus e of the di s coveryof ev iden ce inside the c ar.
T he di s coveryof evi dence i ns i de a car s i m pl y cannotbe a viol at i on of a p assenger’ s Fo urt h A m end m ent r i gh t s, acc or di ng t o t hi s ar gum ent

. T he pas s engerhas a per s onal r i ght n o t to b e se ize d , an d th a t rig h t is v io la ted w h e n th e c a r is il lega ll yp u ll ed o v er. B u t th e il lega l seizu re o f th e p asse n g er’s per s on cannotbe a l egal caus e of t he di s coveryof evi dence t hat i s n o ton t he pas s enger ’ s per s on. T he pol i ce mayhave per for m ed bot h act s at t he same t i m e, butbeca us e ther e w as no l ogi cal co n nect i on betw een the tw o t he i l l egal s ei zur e w as not a but

- forcaus e of the di s coveryof t he evi dence

. 2.
H e re is th e re d u c tio a d a b su rd u m . It i s se ttl e d law th a t if t he pol i ce i l l egal l yent era hou se an d s ear ch i t , t he ow neror t en ant of t he h ou se, or anyl on g-t erm gu est s, m aysupp res s ev idence found duri n g the s ea rch

. S h o rt -t erm g u ests, h o w ev er, 15 have no e xpect at i on of pri vacy i n t he house and t her efor e ca nnot s uppr es s t he fr ui t s of t he i l l egal s ear ch. T hi s i s t rue even i f t he sh o rt

- te rm g u e sts w e re se ize d p u rsu a n t to th e ill e g a l en tryin to t he hous e. I f, forexampl e, t he pol i ce ba r r i caded t he exi t s t o a23 r es i dence , ent er ed, and or der ed eve r y one pre s ent t o fr eez e, t hey w o u ld hav e th ere b y seize d ev ery o n e p rese n t i n the re side n ce . If t hei rentr yw as i l l egal , forexampl e i f ef fec t ed w i t houta w arr ant an d ab sen t exig en t ci rcu m st ances , then all o f th o se se izure s w ere ill e g a l. H o w e v e r, o n lyth e o w n e r, ten a n t, o r lo n g -te rm g u e sts co u ld su p p ress e v iden ce f o u n d d u ri n g the s ea rch

. S h o rt -t erm gues t s w oul d fac e the ful l evi dent i ary w ei ghtof anyevi dence d is c o v e re d

. See Mi nnes ot a v. O l s on , 4 9 5 U

. S

. 9 1 (19 9 0 ).
No w m a k e t h e h o u s e a mo b i l e h o me , a n d d r i v e i td o wn th e s tre e t u n til it i s p u lled o v e r illeg a lly . T h e p o lice a g a in i l l egal l ysei ze a l l t he occ upant s and s ear ch the i nt er i or . U nder t h e h o l d i n g we a r e a n n o u n c i n g t o d a y– wh i c h c o n f o r ms , a s we o b se rv e d a b o v e , w ith th o se o f o u r sis ter c irc u its – th o se sh o rtt er m gues t s ar e no w pas s enger s i n an i l l egal l ys ei zed ve hi cl e, and t hus can suppr es s al l evi dence di s cover ed dur i ng t he s ear ch. T hi s r es ul tappea r s anomal ous i ns ofaras t he Four t h A m endment has b ee n r epea t edl ychar act er i zed byt he Supr eme C our tas aff or di ng enhanc ed p rot ect i on t o t he home, and di m i ni s hed p ro te c ti o n to v e h ic le s . C om pa re , e. g. , G eor

gi a v. R andol

ph , 547 U

. S.

- - - ( 2006) , s l i p op. at10 ( ci t i ng W i l s on v. Layne , 52 6 U. S. 603, 6 1 0 (19 9 9 ) (i n v o k ing the “ ce n turi es-o ld p ri n ciple of r es pect f o r th e p riv a c yo f

th e h o m e ” ); Mi nnes ot a v. C ar t er , 525 U

. S. 83, 99 ( 1998) ( K ennedy , J

. , concurr i ng) ( “[I ] ti s bey ond di s put e that t he home i s ent i t l ed t o s peci al p rotec t i on as t he ce nt erof the p riv a te liv e s o f

o u r p e o p le.” ); Mi l l erv. U ni t ed Stat es , 35 7 U. S. 301, 307 ( 1958) ( not i ng comm on l aw t r adi t i on t hata poorm an i n a humbl e cott age mi ghtnonethel es s bi d d ef ianc e t o al l t he f o rc e s o f th e c ro w n (i f

it is h is c o tta g e )) , w ith , e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v . M a rtin ez-F u e rte , 428 U

. S. 543, 561 ( 1976) ( expl ai ning tha t Four t h A m endment pr ot ect i ons ar e l es s ened f oroccupa nt s ofT he il l egali t yof t he t raffi c st op w as ca used i n each case 16 bya mi s t ake of

l aw on t he par tof t he pol i ce of fi cer . ( U nl i ke a 24 car s beca us e ca r s s ear ches do noti m pl i cat e “the s anct i t yof p riv a te d w e lli n g s, o rd in a rilya f f o rd e d th e m o st s trin g e n t F o u rth A m en d m en t pro tecti o n . ”). Y et i n o u r hyp o thetical, p asse n g ers i n a vehi cl e ar e affor ded gre at er Four t h A m endment pr ot ect i on t han gues t s i n a home.
B.
W e have s etouta cohe r ent lo g ic al ar gum entforan a n a lytic s e p a ra tio n ru le , a n d h ig h lig h ted a n a p p a re n tly anomal ous contr as tbetw een ve hi cl e and home s ei zur e ca s es t hat r ej ect i on o f that rul e mi ghts eem t o ent ai l

. B utw e ar e not p e rsu a d e d . W e w ill re sp o n d to th e a rg u m e n t in tw o w a y s. F irst, in P a rt III.B , w e w ill su rv e yth e c a se law o f o u r sis ter c irc u its, all of w hi ch uphol d pas s enger s uppr es s i on cl ai m s fol l ow i ng i l l egal s t ops . Second, i n Par t I I I

. C , w e w i l l r ej ect t he appa r entl ogi cal pl ausi bi l i t yof t he ana l y t i c s epar at i on ar gum entas i ncons i s t ent w i t h t he more pr agmat i c met hodol o g y ex empl i fi ed byt he Supr eme C our t ’ s excl us i onaryrul e j ur i s prudence

. 1.
T he N i nt h and E le venth C i r cui t s have r ece nt l ydeci ded c a s e s w ith p re c i s e l ya n a lo g o u s f a c ts

. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tw i l l ey , 2 2 2 F .3 d 1 0 9 2 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C hanthas ouxat , 342 F. 3d 1271 ( 11t h C i r . 2003)

. I n eac h cas e, t he tr aff i c s t op w as i l l egal from i t s i ncept i on, and evi dence 16re a so n a b le m ista k e o f f a c t, a m ista k e o f law n e g a tes re a so n a b le s us pi ci on and r ender s t he s t op i ll eg al. ) I n Tw i l l ey , t he off i cer pul l ed overt he car bas ed on t he C al i for ni a l aw t hatal l vehi cl es m us tdi s pl ayal l pl at es i s s ued b y the st at e of r egi s t r at i on. T he carw as fr om M i chi gan, w hi ch i s s ues only o n e pl at e. T he offi cer as s um ed t hat M i chi gan musti s s ue tw o beca us e, he s ai d, “a n aw fu l lot o f stat es issue tw o p lat es.” 2 2 2 F

. 3 d at 10 9 4

. In C hanthas ouxat , t he off

i cerpul l ed overt he van be caus e i tl acke d an i ns i de r earvi ew m i r r or , an d he thoughtt hatA l abama l aw re q u ire d o n e . It d o e s n o t. Ind ee d , bot h cour t s m ade the di s t i nct i on betw een the 17 s ei zur e of the pas s enger eff ect ed by t he s t op, and t he s ubs equent s ear ch of the ca r , not i ng t hatw er e the s earch the onl ygr ounds f o r s u p p re s s io n , t h e p a s s e n g e r w o u ld la c k “ s ta n d in g .” C hanthas ouxat , 3 4 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 3 n .1 ; Tw i l l ey , 222 F. 3d at1095. 25 found dur i ng t he t r aff

i c s t op w as i nt r oduced a gai ns ta pas s enger i n t he car . I n eac h cas e, t he governm ent cont ested t he pas s enger ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s byar gui ng t hatt he pas s enger l acke d “s t andi ng” t o chal l enge t he evi dence beca us e he di d not h a v e a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n t h e i n t e r i or of t he car. In each case, t he cou rtapp l i ed a st and ard frui t s anal y si s, and s uppr es s ed t he evi dence as t he frui t of the i l l egal s ei zur e. 17

T h e tw o c o u rts tr e a te d th is f a c t p a ttern a s a n u tterly s t r ai ght for w ar d and unr emar kabl e appl i cat i on of t he fr ui tof t he p o ison o us t r ee doc t r i ne. T hei ranal y s es pr ocee d pr eci s el yas M o sle y a rg u e s o u rs sh o u ld , in th e f o llo w in g th re e ste p s. F irst, th e tra f f ic s to p w a s a v io latio n o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s F o u rthTh e p a r t i e s g i v e a f a i r a mou n t o f a t t e n t i on t o U n i t ed 18 St at es v. P ul l i am , 4 0 5 F .3 d 7 8 2 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), b u t P ul l i am is i nappos i t e fort he s ame r eas on m os tof the appa r ent l yanal ogous cas es ar e: t her e w as no det er m i nat i on oral legat i on t hatt he i ni t i al s t op of t he car w as i l l egal

. T he def endanti n P ul l i am w as convi ct ed base d on evi dence found i n a sea r ch of a cari n w hi ch he w as a passenger, bu the ch al l eng ed o nlyhis personal arres t and s ear ch – n o t t he i ni t i al t r aff i c s t op. H e conc eded thatt he t r aff i c s t o p w as l egal l yj us t i fi ed, beca us e the ca rhad a br oken ta il lig h t. 4 0 5 F . 3 d a t 7 8 5

. P ul l i am i s j us tanotherof t he many cas es w her e pas s enger s l os e s uppr es s i on m ot i ons fol l ow i ng l egal t r aff

i c s t ops . T hati s notourcas e.

26 A m endment r i ght s ; s econd, t he evi dence w as found as a di r ect cons equenc e of the s t op ( t hati s , there w er e no s i gni fi cant i nt er veni ng event s ) ; t hi r d, t he gover nm ent di d notes t abl i s h any of t he var i ous avai labl e exc ept i ons ( at t enuat i on, i ndepende nt s our ce, inevi t abl e di s covery )

. T he Tw i l l ey cour thel d t hat “[b] eca u se w e conc l ude thatt he s t op w as nots uppor t ed by reas on able s uspici on , and becau se t he sub sequen t sear ch w as a pr oductof t he s t op, t he evi dence l eadi ng t o T w i l l ey ’ s convi ct i on s houl d have be en s uppr es s ed. ” I d. at1097. T he 18 C hanthas ouxat

cour thel d t hat “[b] eca us e w e concl ude thatt he i ni t i al t r aff

i c s t op vi ol at ed the Four t h A m endment , t he vi ol at i on w as n o t cur e d b yv o lun taryco n sen t, an d that C h an thas o u x at’s [i ncr i m i nat i ng] s t at ement s [m ade dur i ng t he s t op] w er e frui t s of t he poi s o n o u s t r ee, w e hol d t hatt he drug evi dence and C hanthas ouxat ’ s s t at ement s m us tbe su p p res s ed. ” 342 F. 3d at 1281.See a l so , e. g. , U

n itedS ta tes v . C o lin , 3 1 4 F .3 d 4 3 9 (9 th 19 C i r. 20 02 ) (s am e analy si s as Tw i l l ey , an d co ll ec ti n g ca ses). In bot h Tw i l l ey and C hanthas ouxat , i ndeed, ( and unl i ke ourcas e) t he dr i verof t he vehi cl e i n fac t cons ent ed t o t he s ear ch, butt he cour tru led t hatt he cons entw as not“obt ai ned bym eans s uffi ci ent l ydi s t i ngui s habl e fr om t he i l l egal s t op t o be pur ged of t he pr i m aryt ai nt

. ” C hanthas ouxat , 342 F

. 3 d at1280 ( i nt ernal q u o tes , b ra c k e ts o m itt e d ); accor d Tw i l l ey , 222 F. 3d at 1097 ( beca us e “the i nt err ogat i on and s ear ch w er e a di r ect r es ul t of the i l l egal s t op . . . t hi s i s a cl assic case of obt ai ni ng evi dence t hr ough t he expl oi t at i on of an i ll egal s t op. ”) ( i nt ernal quot es o m itted). C o n se n t f

o llo w in g a n ill e g a l se izu re d o e s n o t in itse lf pu rge t he tai nt of t he i l l egali t y for F ou rth A m end m ent purposes; th e g o v e rn m e n t m u st s h o w su f f icie n t atte n u a tio n to c a u sa lly d is c o n n e c t th e c o n s e n t f ro m th e s e iz u re . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Snype , 441 F. 3d 119, 133 ( 2d C i r . 2006) (c o ll ect i ng num er ous ca ses). 27 W hat i s not ew or t hy about t hes e cas es i s t hat t heyi ncl ude no di s cus s i on w hat s oeverof t he “f ac tual nexus ” betw een the i l l egal s t op and the di s coveryof t he evi dence

. T he court s s ee t he cha i n of eve nt s betw een the i l l egal s t op and t he s ubs equent dis cov eryof ev i den ce t o co nst i tute s uch a sel f-evi den tlycl ose

“ f a c tu a l n e x u s ” th a t, a s P ro f e s s o r L a F a v e p u ts it, s ee 6 L aFave, supra , § 1 1 .4 (d ), th e re is n o n e e d to p ro b e th e lim its o f th e f ru it of t he poi s onous t r ee doc t r i ne. 19T he pol i ce of fi cerpul l ed overt he truck i n w hi ch R eed 20
w as a pas s engerbeca us e i tw as t ow i ng a hor s e tr ai l er , and, t he o ff icer testi fied , h o rse trai lers are so m eti m es u s e d to tr an sp o rt m ar i j uana beca us e t he s m el l of the hor s es m as ks t he s m el l of the drugs . I n fac t , t he tr ai l ercont ai ned hor ses an d cash, butnot dr ug s . I n t h e d i s p u t e d c o n f e s s i o n , Re e d a d mi t t e d h a v i n g been par tof a s epar at e di s t r i but i on cons pi r acy . 349 F. 3d at462. 28 2.
I n U ni ted St at es v. R eed , 3 4 9 F

. 3 d 4 5 7 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ), t he defenda ntpas s engerconfe s s ed t o drug di s t r i but i on aft er s pendi ng s ever al hour s w i t h pol i ce ( w hetheri n cus t odyornot w as di s put ed) fol l ow i ng a tr aff i c s t op. H e cont ended thatt he pol i ce l acke d pr obabl e ca us e fort he s t op, and s ought 20 s uppr es s i on of t he conf es s i on on frui t s gr ounds

. T he di s t r i ct cour trul ed thateven i f t he arr es tw as i l l egal , hi s s ubs equent confessi on w as s t i l l vol unt ary . T hus t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d not ru le o n th e le g a li tyo f

th e in iti a l sto p . O n a p p e a l, th e S e v e n th C i r cui t , a p p l y i ng B ro w n v . Ill in o is , 422 U

. S. 590 ( 1975) , vaca t ed a n d r e ma n d e d , h o l d i n g t h a t , n o t wi t h s t a n d i n g t h e l a p s e o f t i me and t he vol unt ar i nes s of R eed’ s confe s s i on, t he c onfes s i on w oul d have t o be s uppr es s ed as frui t of t he poi s onous t r ee i f t he i ni t i al s t op had bee n i l l egal

. T he R eed cour texpl i ci t l yr ej ect ed a “c ount er fac tual pur gat i on” ana l y sis of t he s or templ oy ed by t he Tent h C i r cui ti n D eLuca and byt he D i stri ct C ou rt i n the case at ba r:
T he di s s entopi nes t hatR eed w oul d have c o n f e s s e d e v e n i f h e h a d b e e n a l l o we d t o g o h o me29 ra th e r th a n b e in g h e ld f o r h o u rs, b e c a u se h is confe ssion s t emm ed fr om a des i r e t o w i n favor and r ew ard and w as nota cons equenc e of the i l l egal i t y . W e cannot m ake t hatdet er m i nat i on as a mat t erof l aw , and the governm enthas t he bur den t o p rov e t hathi s confe s s i on w as at t r i but abl e t o a fa ct orot hert han the pr ol onged d e ten tio n f

o llo w in g th e a lleg e d lyill e g a l ar re st. T hat Ree d d e t e r mi ne d tha ti tw a s i n h i s be st i n t e r e s tt o c o o p e r a t e d o e s n o ts o me h o w di v o r ce hi s deci s i on fr om t he unl aw ful det ent i on.
R eed , 349 F. 3d at466.
T he R eed

cour tr ej ect s bot h com p onent s of t he D eLuca co u n terf a c tu a l ana ly sis: first , the s h ift ing o f th e e x p lana tory bur den t o t he de fe n d ant , and s econd, t he art i fi ci al “di vor ci ng” of t he ( l egal ) act by w hi ch t he evi dence w as phy s i cal l yobt ai ned f ro m its (illeg a l) n e c e ss a ryc a u sa l an tec e d e n t. If th a t d iv o rc e is g o ing to o cc u r, the c o u rt insist s, itw il l be th rou g h the s tand ard f ru its e x c e p tio n s, a n d th e ym u st b e sh o w n b yth e g o v e rn m e n t.
3.
I n U ni t ed Stat es v. G ueve r a- M ar t i nez , 2 6 2 F .3 d 7 5 1 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ), th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s a p a ss e n g e r i n a c a r p u lled o v e r in an i l l egal t r aff

i c s t op. D ur i ng t he st op, t he offi cer s s ear ched the carand di s cover ed m et hamphet ami ne. O n t hatbas i s t hey a r r e s t e d Gu e v e r a - M a r t i n e z . T h a tn i g h t , i n j a i l , h e t o l d a n I NS agentt hathe w as i n t he countr yi l l egal l y . G uever a-M arti nez w as char ged i n s epar at e ind ict m ent s w i t h bot h drug and30 i m m i grat i on viol at i on s. G uev era m ov ed to su pp res s the d rugs, arg u ing that the traf

fic sto p w as il lega l. T h e d istri ct co u rt g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n , a n d t h e d ru g c h a r g e s w e r e d i s m i s s e d

. On t he i m m i grat i on charge, G uervera- M art i nez sou gh tt o sup press bot h t he s t at ement s he made and t he fi ngerpr i nt s t aken w hi l e he w as i n j ai l

. T he di s t r i ct cour t gr ant ed the s uppr es s i on m ot i on on th e sa m e g ro u n d s, h o ld in g th a t b o th th e sta tem e n ts a n d p rin ts w e re f ru it o f th e ill e g a l traf

f ic s to p , an d th e E ig h th C irc u it aff i r m ed.
T h e E ig h th C irc u it ap p lied a stra ig h tf o rw a rd f

ru its a n a ly sis : “ [ O ]f

f ice rs o b tain e d G u e v e ra -M a rtin e z ’s f in g e rp rin ts [and s t at ement s ] byexpl oi t i ng hi s unl aw ful det ent i on, i ns t ead of bym eans s uffi ci entt o have pur ged th e t ai ntof t he i ni t i al i l l egal i t y . ” I

d. at 755. T he courtdeemed i ti r r el evantt hat G uever a- M ar t i nez “ w i l l i nevi t abl yfac e” c i vi l depor t at i on pr ocee di ngs i n w hi ch new fi ngerpr i nt evi dence w oul d eas i l ybe obt ai ned, and w hi ch w oul d s uppor tt he rei n stat ement of t he c rim in a l im m ig ra tio n c h a rg e s : “ [ T ]h e g o v e rn m e n t as k s u s to i gnor e i t s us e of t ai nt ed evi dence i n t hi s cas e. W e dec l i ne t o [do s o]

. . . T he i m por t antt hi ng i s t hatt h o se ad m inis t er i ng t he cr i m i nal l aw under s t and t hat t hey m us t obt ai n t he evi dence t he r i ghtw ay . ” I

d. a t7 5 6 ( q uot i ng D avis v. Mis s is s i ppi , 39 4 U. S. 7 2 1 , 7 2 6 n . 4 (19 6 9 ) (i n terna l qu o tes, b rac k ets o m itted).
4.
U ni t ed Stat es v. D or t ch , 1 9 9 F .3 d 1 9 3 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ), is al s o v ery cl os e i n i t s fac t s t o t he ca s e atbar

. I n D or t ch , t he d e f e n d a n t w a s th e d riv e r ra th e r th a n a p a ss e n g e r, b u t th is di ffe r ence i s i r r el evant beca us e D or t ch’ s s uppr es s i on cl ai m w as31 b ase d so lel yo n the d eten ti o n it self. D o rt ch w a s stop p ed fo r a t r aff i c i nfr act i on, and he di d notchal l enge the l egal i t yof the s t op. H ow ever , t he pol i ce c ont i nued t o det ai n hi m ( and, o b v io u sly , h is v e h icle ) a f ter th e leg iti m a te p u rp o se o f th e tra f f ic s to p h a d b e e n c o m p le te d

. I d. a t 1 9 7

. In ste a d o f a llo w in g h im to l eave , t he pol i ce de t ai ned hi m fo r f ift een mi nut es w hi l e they s u mmo n e d a d ru g - s n i f

f i n g d o g t e a m.
T he bul k of t he F i ft h C i r cui t ’ s anal y s i s i s devot ed t o t he q u est i on of w hetherD or t ch’ s cont i nued det ent i on, once the purpos es of t he t r aff

i c st op had been com pl et ed, w as l egal

. T he c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t itw a s n o t – th a t th e p o lice h a d n o p ro b a b le caus e t o cont i nue t o det ai n hi m . T he governm entar gued that D or t ch cons ent ed t o t he s ubs equents ear ch once t he dog t eam arr i ved, butt he courthel d t hateve n if h e di d cons ent , t he evi dence m us ts t i l l be s uppr es sed : “eve n i f D or t ch’ s cons ent w as volun tari l ygi ven . . . t he cons entw as notval i d. I ns t ead, beca us e the ca us al chai n betw een the i ll egal det ent i on and D or t ch’ s cons ent

. . . w as notbr oken, the s ear ch w as noncons ens ual

. ” I

d. at202.
T he court t hus or der ed suppr es s i on of al l t he evi dence – w hi ch w as cons i der abl e – that had been am as s ed agai ns tD or t ch, and r emanded not j us t for r etr i al , but w i t h t he s peci fi c or dert hat he be gr ant ed a j udgm ent o f acqui t t al

. T he j us t i fi cat i on w as s t r ai ght for w ar d frui t s anal y s i s : t he mom entt he l egal purpos es of t he tr af fic s t op w er e s at i s fi ed, anyfur t herdet ent i on of D or t ch w as i l l egal

. W hen the dog t eam ar r i ved, t he dogs w er e s ent ar ound t he ca rand al er t ed to it

. O n t hatbas i s , t he pol i ce s ea rch ed the ca rand found drugs . A nd on t hatbas i s t heyA nd i nd ee d D or t ch w as nei t hert he ow nernort he 21 a u t h o r i z e d p o s s e s s o ro f t h e c a r . T h e c a r h a d b e e n r e n t e d b y a t hir d p arty (n e i t her D ort ch n or t he p assenger)

. T hu s there i s a col or abl e ar gum entt hatD or t ch had n o r eas onabl e expe ct at i on o f p ri v ac y in th e in teri o r of the c ar w h atso ev er. B u t th e c o u rt expl ai ns t hati tdoes notneed t o rea ch t hati s s ue, beca us e the d e ten tio n w a s ill e g a l, an d th e f ru its su p p re ss io n f

o llo w s d ire c tly f ro m th a t d e te rm in a tio n . See D or t ch , 199 F. 3d at197- 98 and n. 4 ( “G iven that D or t ch does notchal l enge the l egal i t yof t he se a rc h , itis p u z z lin g th a t th e d iss e n t g o e s to su c h e f f o rts to devel op i t s t heoryt hat‘ beca us e the r ent al agr eementpr ovi ded o n lyth e re n ter w a s a n a u th o riz e d d riv e r, D o rtc h h a d n o rig h t to compl ai n of t he vehi cl e’ s det ent i on. ’ I n ar gui ng t hatD or t ch has 32 s ecur ed a w arr antforD or t ch’ s hom e, s ear ched i tand found m or e drugs and par aphernal i a.
T he D or t ch cas e i s par t i cul ar l y s i gni fi cant as an ana l ogue to the case at bar becau se i t w as go verned by th e tw in p r o p o s i t i o n s t h a t , f

i r s t , a n e x t e r i o ri n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a c a rb y a d ru g -s n i f

f i n g p o lic e d o g is n o t a s e a rc h a s a m a tte r o f la w , s ee D or t ch , 199 F. 3d at198; ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v . S e a ls , 987 F. 2d 1 1 0 2 , 1 1 0 6 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 )); s ee al s o I l l i nois v. C abal l es , 5 43 U

. S. 405, 409 ( 2005) , and s econd, t hat t he dog’ s al ert i ng t o t he c a rc o n s t i tu t e s p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o ra s e a r c h , a s a ma t t e ro f l a w. See D o rtc h , 199 F. 3d at198 ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Zucco , 71 F .3 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 1 -9 2 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). T h u s, in D o rtc h ’s c a se , as in M os l ey ’ s , t her e w as no s ear ch t o w hi ch he c an obj ect

. I f t he dog tea m h a d a rriv e d w h ile D o rtc h w a s le g a llyd e tain e d , the re w o u ld have be en no Four t h A m endment vi ol at i on. T he onl ybas i s for 21n o l e g i t i ma t e p r i v a c yi n t e r e s ti n a r e n t a l c a r , t h e d i s s e n ts e e ms to m iss th e p o in t. A s w e e x p lain a b o v e , D o rtc h ’s c o m p lain t is not t h a t t h e v e h i c l e was d e t a i n e d o r i mpr o p e r l y s e a r c h e d , but rathe r t h at he w as im p rop erlyseize d

. . . . ”). 33 D or t c h ’ s s u p p r e s s i o n mot i o n , a s f o r M o s l e y ’ s , i s t h at t he c h a llen g e d e v id e n c e is th e f ru it o f a n ill e g a l d e ten tio n . T h u s it is i rreleva n t th at D o rt ch w as the d ri v er rathe r th an a p asse n g er, beca us e t hat di s t i nct i on appl i es onl y t o chal l enges t o t he s ear ch of t he ca r , and D or t ch, l i ke M os l ey , m ade no s uch cha l l enge. U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 2 3 4 F .3 d 2 3 4 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ), is s i m i l art o D or t ch

. I n Jones , t he ca rw as val i dl ys t opped for s peedi ng, butt he pol i ce c ont i nued t o det ai n bo th d ri verand pas s enger w i t hout pr obabl e ca us e af t ert he l egi t i m at e purpos es of t he sto p – i s s uance of a c i t at i on, and comput ercr i m i nal hi s t or ychec k – w er e compl et ed. D ur i ng t he i l l egal pr ol ongat i on of t he det ent i on, t he dri ver cons ent ed t o a s ear ch of the ca r , and contr aban d was d i s c o v e r e d. T he Fi ft h C i r cui t , upon det er m i ni ng t hatt he cons ent w as nots uffi ci ent l yat t enuat ed fr om t he i l l egal det ent i on t o have be en pur ged, or der ed s uppr es s i on of t he evi dence as t o bot h t he dr i verand the pas s enger , r eas oni ng t hat al t hough t he pas s engerhad no st andi ng t o chal l enge the s ear ch o f th e c a r, h e c o u ld c h a llen g e th e ill e g a l e x ten sio n o f th e tra f f ic sto p , an d th a t ex ten sio n w a s a sin g le e v e n t w h ich w a s c a u sa lly c o n n e c te d to th e d is c o v e ry o f th e e v id e n c e . I

d. at244.
D or tch and Jones su g g e s t v e ry st ro n g ly th a t h a d M o s le y ’s ca se a ri sen in the F ift h C ir cu it , the g u n w o u ld b e su p p resse d

. In D or t ch , just as h ere , there w as n o inv asio n o f th e d ef en d a n t’ s34 r ea so nabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacyi n t he s ear ch t hatpr oduced t he evi dence

. T he i nvas i on came s ol el yi n t he det ent i on (seizu re o f th e p e rso n ), an d th e c o u rt a p p lied a stra ig h tf o rw a rd f ru its anal y s i s , pur s uantt o w hi ch i tt ook i tas s el f- evi dentt hata ca r s ear ch fol l ow i ng an i l l egal t r aff i c s t op i s t he frui tof t hats t op. 5.
I n U n itedS ta tes v . K im b a ll , 25 F. 3d 1 ( 1s tC i r . 1994) , t he de f e n d a n twas a p a s s e n g e ri n a c a rt h a twas s t o p p e d b yt he pol i ce. A ll thr ee oc cupant s w er e arr es t ed on s us pi ci on of bur gl ary , and t he pol i ce pe r for m ed an “ i nvent or y ” s ear ch of the car upo n tow i ng i tt o the st at i on . K i m ball soug ht t o sup press evi dence r ecove r ed fr om t he ca r , and t he cour t fr amed the i s s ue as fol l ow s: A p o lice o f f ice r’s a c t o f sto p p in g a v e h icle an d d etaining it s o cc u p an ts co n sti tutes a se izure w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. . . . W hen a pol i ce of

fi cereff ect s a n i n ves t i gat or ys t op o f a v eh icl e, all o cc u p an ts of that v eh icl e a re su b jec ted to a se iz u r e , a s d e f in e d b yth e F o u rth A m end m ent. T he fa ctt hat a def e n d a nt i s a p a ss e n g e r in a v e h icle a s o p p o se d to th e d riv e r is a d istin c tio n o f n o c o n se q u e n c e in th is c o n tex t. T he i nt er es ti n fr eedom of m ovement and the interest i n b eing fre e f

rom fe ar a n d su rprise a re per s onal t o al l o ccupant s of t he vehi cl e, and an in d iv id u a l’s in ter e st is n o t d im in ish e d sim p ly beca us e he i s a pas s engeras oppos ed t o t he dr i ver w hen the s t op occurr ed.

. . . T hus , i f t he i ni t i al35 s t op of t he vehi cl e w as i l l egal , evi dence s ei zed by v irtu e o f th a t sto p , su c h a s th e to o ls in th is i ns ta nce, m aybe s ubj ectt o excl us i on undert he “frui tof t he poi s onous t r ee” doctr i ne.
K im b a ll , 2 5 F

. 3 d at 5-6 (cit ati o n s o m itted).
T he courtt hen adde d, i n a verys i gni fi cantfoot not e:
T he Gov ernm ent ’ s r el i ance on R a ka s v . Ill in o is , in t he cont extof a s t op, i s m i s pl ace d. I n R akas , t he U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rth eld th at a m ere pas s engeri n an au t om obi l e or di nar i l ydoes not have the l egi t im at e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy necess aryt o chal l enge the s ear ch of that aut om obi l e. T he Su pr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on, how ever , w as l i m i t ed t o t he i s s ue of w hethert he pas s enger ’ s l egi t i m at e expect at i on of pr i vacyw as in v a d e d b ya s e a rc h o f th e v e h i c le , and notthe s t op ther eof

. I d. at 6 n

. 3 (em p h asis ad d ed , interna l ci tes o m itted).
T he footnot e i s s i gni fi cantbeca us e i thel ps t o c l a r i fyw hat we t h i n k w a s a s o u r c e o f c o n f u s i o n i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e l o w. R akas h e ld sim p lyth a t a p a ss e n g e r in a c a r h a s n o re a so n a b le e x p e c tatio n o f

p riv a c y in th e in ter io r of th e c a r, a n d th u s th a t a se a rc h o f th a t ca r d o e s n o t v io late a n y o f th e p a ss e n g e r’s F o u rth A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts. B u t R akas s ay s abs ol ut el ynot hi ng aboutt he s cope of t he exc l us i onaryrul e w i t h r es pec t t o t he frui t s of an i l l e g a l s t o p . T he K im b a llcour tm akes i tcl eart hatt heT h e c o u rtu lt im atelyaf firm e d the d en ial o f K im b all ’s 22 s uppr es s i on m ot i on on t he grounds t hat t he s t op w as r eas onabl e. 25 F. 3d at8. For an i l l us t r at i on of t hi s m ethodol ogyi n pr act i ce i n t he di s t r i ct cour t s , s ee U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 374 F. Supp. 2d 143 (D

. D

. C

. 20 05 ), w hich i s very stro ng l yanalogo us t o o ur fact s. T he dis t ri ct cou rtsupp res sed al l t he ch al l eng ed ev i den ce aga i nst th e d e f e n d a n t af

ter g o in g th ro u g h p re c ise lyth e f ru its a n a ly sis M o sle yc o n ten d s f

o r h e re . Jo n e s w a s a n o n -o w n e r p a ss e n g e r in a vehi cl e t hat w as i l l egal l y det ai ned by t he pol i ce. T he ca rw as par ked w h en off

i cer s appr oache d, ques t i oned, det ai ned, and arr est ed the t w o o ccup ants , effecti ng an i l l egal sei zure of Jon es. T h e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e d f irst th a t th e e n c o u n ter w a s c o n se n su a l, and t hen i n t he al t ernat i ve t hati tw as a perm i s s i bl e T erry s t op. T he cour t r ej ect ed both ar gum ent s and found the det ent i on t o be ille g a l. I d. at149, 152. A ccor di ngl y , i ts uppr es s ed al l evi dence s ubs eque n t l yr ecove r ed, i ncl udi ng both phy s i cal evi dence and s t at ement s , beca us e “the governm entfai led to m eeti t s bur den of j us t i fy i ng under t he F our t h A m endment t he pol i ce i nt rus i on upon J ones ’ l i ber t y . ” I d. at153. T he courtr ecognized t hat J ones , as a non- ow nerpas s enger , “fa i l ed t o demonst r at e a l e g i t i ma t e e x p e c t a t i on o f p r i v a c yi n t h e v e h i c l e o ri t e ms 36 pas s enger ’ s r eas onabl e exp ect at i on of pr i vacyvi s - a- vi s t he s ear ch i s compl et el y i r r el evant t o t he frui t s i nqui r y w i t h r es pect t o t he s t op. W e r ead K im b a llas hol di ng thatt he det er m i nat i ve q u e stio n in p a ss e n g e r su p p re ss io n is th e leg a lity o f th e sto p : if t h e s t o p i s i l l e g a l , t h e n s t a n d a r d f ru i t s s u p p r e s s i o n w i l l a p p l y. 22r ecove r ed fr om i t , ” i d. at 1 5 4 , b utdeemed t hatfac ti r r el evant be c a u s e t h e s u p p r e s s i o n c l a i m w a s g r o u n d e d i n t h e i l l egal det ent i on r athert han the s ear ch i t s el f. “[The aut o pas s enger s ear ch ca s es ] i nvol ve cl ai m s t hatt he s ear ch of the vehi cl e or co m p artm en ts w ith in it w a s u n law fu l. B yco n tr ast, Jo n es h ere ar gues t hathe w as unl aw ful l ys t opped and s ei zed, and thus t he cont ent s of the [ca r ] s houl d be s uppr es s ed as the r es ul tof t hat unl aw ful s ei zur e. ” I

d. T he courtacc or di ngl ycons i der ed w h e th e r a n y“ d iss ip a tin g ” o r “ p u rg in g ” f a c to rs w e re p re se n t, s uch as l aps e of t i m e ori nt er v eni ng ci r cumst ance s . Fi ndi ng none, t he courtor der ed al l evi dence r ecove r ed as a r es ul tof t he i ni t i al encount ert o be s uppr es s ed. 37 6.
T he gover nm ent br i ngs t o ourat t ent i on U ni t ed Stat es v. C ar t er , 14 F. 3d 1150 ( 6t h C i r . 1994) , a ca s e i n w hi ch evi dence found dur i ng a s ear ch of a vehi cl e w as s uppr es s ed as t o t he dr i verbutadmi t t ed as t o t he pas s enger . C ar t erw as a pas s enger in a v a n , w h ich th e p o lice p u lled o v e r f o r f a ilu re to h a v e a v a lid l i c e n s e p l a t e . Th e c ru c i a l f a c tu a l a n d p r o c e d u r a l p o i n t , w hi ch m akes C ar t eri nappos i t e, i s t hatC ar t erdi d not ch all enge t he leg a lityof the i nit i al st op . T hu s C ar t er , l i ke D eLuca , c a n n ot g u ide t he ana l y s i s i n ourcas e, beca us e unl i ke i n ourcas e, t he c o u rt d id n o t f

in d th a t th e in iti a l traf

f ic s to p itse lf

w a s illeg a l: [W ] hetherornott he or i g inal t r aff i c s t op w as uncons t i tut i onal – an i s s ue thatw as notpr es er ved i n C ar t er ’ s obj ect i on t o t he magi s t r at e’ s r e por tand t hatw e d o n o t r eac h her e – w e s hal l as s um e for38 purpos es of ana l y s i s , not onl yt hatt he s ubs equent arr estof the dri ver w as unco nst i tuti on al , bu tal so t hatt he det ent i on of M r . C ar t er , i f not i l l egal fr om t he out s et , b ec am e i l l egal w hen the dr i verw as arr es t ed.
C ar t er , 14 F. 3d at1154.
N o te that the c o u rtd o es n o t ho ld tha t C arter’s s uppr es s i on m ot i on w oul d fai l even i f t he i ni t i al t r aff i c s t op had been i l l egal

. T he cour tdoes notas s um e thatthe i ni t i al s t op w as i l l egal , butonl yt hatC ar t er ’ s det ent i on “bec ame i l l egal w hen the dr i ver w as ar r es t ed. ” Thatdi s t i nct i on ( car eful l ypr es er ved by t he “i f n o t” cons t ruct i on) m akes al l t he di ffe r ence . A s l ong as t he pol i ce i ni t i al l yobt ai ned contr ol overt he vehi cl e l egal l y , t hen ( on t he D eLuca r eas oni ng) no s ear ch of the vehi cl e af t ert hat p o in t, no m a tter h o w u n c o n stitu tio n a l, w ill b e s u bjec t to c h a llen g e b ya p a ss e n g e r. B u t C ar t erd o es not addr es s t he situ a tio n in w h ich th e in iti a l sto p w a s il leg a l; to so tre a t itis to stre tch its h o ld in g n o t o n lyb e y o n d its f a c ts b u t b e y o n d its l anguage . C.
A s th e p re c e d in g su rv e ye sta b lish e s, th e p re v a ili n g ru le i n the cou rt s of ap peals is t hat an i l l egal traffi c st op entai l s a su p p re ss io n re m e d yf

o r a ll o c c u p a n ts o f th e c a r. T h e a u th o rity of ours i s t erci rcui t s i s per s uas i ve. H ow ever , w e thi nk t he i nt er es t s of j us t i ce a nd j ur i s prudent i al cl ar i t yar e bes ts er ved by g iv in g th is iss u e th e f u lles t p o ss ib le a irin g , so w e th in k it in c u m b e n t o n u s to r e b u t th e lo g ica l ar g u m e n t f o r a n a lytic39 separat i on w e present ed abov e. W e t hink that argum e n t is r ebut t abl e i ndepende nt l yof t he per s uas i ve w ei ght of ours i s t er ci rcui t s’ decis i on s, for t he fo l l ow i ng reas on s. Fi r s t , w e do nott hi nk i tqui t e s o s el f- evi dent thatt he s ei zur e of a pas s engeri n a vehi cl e i s not a but

- forcaus e of the di s covery of evi dence i n t he vehi cl e. T he s i m pl es ts t at ement of t he co ncep tof but- for causat i on i s that event A i s a but- for cause o f e v e n t B if

e v e n t B c o u ld n o t h a p p e n w ith o u t ev e n t A h a p p e n i n g f

i r s t

. But

- f

o rc a u s a t i o n i s a n i n f

e r e n c e d r a wn fr om r egul ar l yobs er ved corr el at i on.
B uti tm us tbe s t r es s ed thatcaus at i on i s an i nfer ence , not an obs er vat i on, as phi loso pher s s i nce a tl eas tH um e have r emi nded us . T he onl y empi r i cal fac t s t hat w e can d is cover aboutt he w or l d ar e fa ct s aboutcorr el at i on. W e ca nnotobs er ve caus al r el at i ons hi ps , w hether of cue bal l t o ei ghtbal l , of m oon t o t i d e s , o ro f

d i e t

- p i l l i n g e s t i o n t o h e a r tf a i l u r e . Wh a twe o b s e r v e i s c o r r e l a t i o n , a n d wh e n we s e e i tr e g u l a r l ye n o u g h , we hypot hes i ze c aus at i on. Sci ence pr ogresse s byr epea t ed t es t i ng and att empt ed i nval i dat i on of ca us al hypot hes es . T hos e that su rv iv e th e p ro c e ss p e rsis t.
T he r el at i ons hi p betw een t he s ei zur e of a pas s enger i n a m o v in g v e h icle , w h ich n e c e s s a rilyo c c u rs w h e n th a t v e h icle is s t opped by t he pol i ce, and t he s ubs equentdi s coveryof evi dence d uri ng t hat s t op , i s one o f i neluct able and u nd eniable corr el at i on. T he day has not daw ned w hen a pol i ce of fi cercan eff ectuat e a tr aff

i c s t op w i t houts ei zi ng al l t he occupa nt s of t heO f cou rs e, t he day m ay daw n – perhap s i tal readyhas – 23
w hen pol i ce mays ear ch the i nt er i orof a mo v ing carw i t hout s t oppi ng i tori n anyw ayr es t r i ct i ng t h e fre ed o m of m ovement o f th e o c c u p a n ts, f

o r e x a m p le b ye m p lo y in g re m o te e lec tro n ic d ev ices. In su ch a situ ati o n , w h e re n o seizu re o f th e c ar’s o c c u p a n t s is e f

f e c te d , R akas w o u ld co n tr o l and p asse n g ers w oul d l ack the r i ghtt o s uppr es s evi dence di s cover ed. 40 vehi cl e. T he corr el at i on betw een that s eizur e and the

23 d isc o v e ryo f

e v id e n c e d u rin g th e sto p is a p e rf e c t 1 0 0 p e rc e n t. A s an empi r i cal m at t er , t her efor e, t he fa ct s on t he gr ound m eet t he defi ni t i on of but

- for caus at i on: y ou never s ee t he one w ith o u t se e in g th e o th e r f irst.
So shoul d w e hypot hes i ze – or , gi ven ouri ns t i tut i onal pos i t i on, perhaps “i m pos e” i s t he bett er ter m – a ca us al r el at i ons hi p betw een the s ei zur e and the di s coveryof t he e v id e n c e ? A s d e taile d a b o v e , th e d o m in a n t v iew in th e c irc u its i s t hatt he ca us al nex u s b etw een the tr aff i c s t op and the d isco v e ry o f e v iden ce is self-ev iden tl ysu ff ici en t t o su p p o rt s uppr es s i on. W e agr ee thatt he ca us al r el ati ons hi p s eems c l os e, and cl ear . B ut w e w i l l notpr et end thatw e have no r ol e i n i m pos i ng, a s a leg al m att er, th at ca u sal relati o n sh ip o n to the fa ct pa tt ern befo r e u s , o rt h a ts u c h j u d g me n t s c a n b e ma d e wi t h i r o n - c l ad l ogi cal orempi r i cal pr eci s i on. W e do not i gnor e the fa ctt hatt he analyt ic sep arat i on of indi vidual con st i tuti on al viol at i on s i s a p lau sib le lo g ica l d e d u c ti o n f ro m th e p ro p o sitio n th a t F o u rth41 A m endment r i ght s ar e per so n al. W e do, how ever , r ej ects uch s epar at i on. W e th in k th e b e tter v iew is th a t a tra f f ic s to p is a sin g le act , w hi ch af

fec t s equal l y al l occupa nt s of a vehi cl e. T o us , t hat descri pti on o f t raffi c st op s com po rt s w i t h the com m on sense exper i ence of eve r y one w ho has ever r i dden i n a ca r ; w e agr ee w i t h t he Fi r s tC i r cui tt hatt he di s t i nct i on betw een pas s engerand d ri v e r “ is a d is tin c tio n o f n o c o n s e q u e n c e in t h is c o n te x t.” K im b a ll , 2 5 F .3 d a t 5 . A p o lice o f f ice r w h o p u lls o v e r a v e h icle does not , i n t he ac tof pul l i ng overt he vehi cl e, i nt er act s epar at el yw i t h eac h occupa nt ; r ather , t he offi cerunder t akes one a c tio n – tu rn in g o n th e sire n a n d lig h ts – w h ich in sta n tlya f f e c ts e v e ry o n e in th e ta r g e ted v e h icle , sig n a lin g to th e m th a t th e ir fr ee dom of m ovement has been r es t r i ct ed. I tdefi es comm on sense and com m on exp eri ence to t ransm ute one acti on i nto t hr ee, and w e w i l l notendorse a F our t h A m endment appr oach t hatr el i es on s uch a t r ans m ut at i on. T he gover nm enti ns i s t s t hat “Four t h A m endment r i ght s ar e per s onal r i ght s , ” and w e do not cont es tt he abs t r act v al i di t yof t hatpr opos i t i on. B utgener al pr opos i t i ons do notdecide concr et e ca s es , and w e r ej ectt he pr act i cal i m pl i cat i ons t he gover nm ent s eeks t o der i ve fr om t hat pr opos i t i on. W e rej ect“bl i nd adher ence t o a phr as e w hi ch at m os thas s uper fi ci al cl ar i t yand w hi ch conc eal s underneath t hat t hi n venee ral l of t he pr obl ems of l i ne dr aw i ng w hi ch mustbe f a c e d in a n yc o n sc ien tio u s e f f o r t to a p p lyth e F o u rth A m endment

. ” R a ka s v . Ill in o is , 4 3 9 U

. S

. 1 2 8 , 1 4 7 (19 7 8 ).
Fur t her m or e, t he r el at i ons hi p betw een a t r aff i c s t op and t he di s cov ery o f evi dence dur i ng t hats t op i s notl i ke the r el at i ons hi p betw een tw o bal l s on a bi l l i ard tabl e. L aw i s not42 p h y sic s . I n e v e n its m o st a sp ira tio n a llysc ien tific m ani fes t at i ons , t he l aw r ecogni zes and embr ace s t he i nfus i on of a mul t i pl i ci t yof val ues i nt o j udi ci al det er m i nat ion s of ca us al re la tio n s h i p s , s ee , e. g. , C ar l F. C r anor& D avi d A

. E as t m an, S c ien tif ic I g n o ra n c e a n d

R e lia b le P a tter n s o

f E v id e n c e in T

o x ic Tort C aus at i on , 64 L

. & C ont emp. Pr ob. 5 ( 2001) ( as s es s i ng t he ext entt o w hi ch court s ar e w i l li n g orabl e t o as s i m i l at e and eval uat e s ci ent i fi c model s of ca us at i on i n compl ex c ase s), and t he Supr eme C our thas done s o even mor e emphat i cal ly , and r e c e n tl y, in th e c o n tex t o f th e e x c lu sio n a ryru le. F o u rth A m endment rul es cannotbe der i ved fr om deduct i ve r eas oni ng fr om fi r s t pr i nci pl es , nor do t heycry s t al l i ze, unai ded, fr om t he nak ed fa ct s of dis pu t ed searches.
T he Supr eme Court has j us t t hi s T er m r ei t er at ed thatt he excl us i onaryrul e w as founded on, an d i s gr ounded i n, t he cont i nui ng exer ci s e of pr agmat i c j udi ci al s uper vi s i on of t he l aw enfor cementact i vi t i es of t he execut i ve br anch, eff ectuat ed by expans i on and cont r act i on of t he bubbl e of pr oxi m at e ca us e as c o u rt s f a c e p a rt ic u la r c o n c re te f a c tu a l s itu a tio n s . See H uds on v. Mi chi gan , 547 U

. S.

- - - ( 2006) ( el i m i nat i ng s uppr es s i on r emedy for k n o ck-a nd- announce vi ol at i ons beca us e, i nt eral i a, as c o m p a re d w ith th e 1 9 5 0 s, p o lice d e p a rtm e n ts a re m o re lik e lyto b e “ sta f f e d w ith p ro f

e ss io n a ls,” a n d law y e rs a re m o re lik e lyto t ake on § 1983 c as es). T he t es tbyw hi ch ourm odel s of cons t i tut i onal caus at i on ar e meas ur ed i s notempi r i cal val i dat i on byexper i m ent , butr athert he mar ch of s oci al pr ogr es s , r efr act ed t hr ough cont i nual j udi ci al eval uat i on of cons t i tut i onal purpos es and s oci al cons equenc es . A s t he s oci al co n text of l aw enfor cementevol ves , s o t oo does t h e excl us i onaryrul e. T he d e b a te a b o u t th e c o n stitu tio n a l c o n se q u e n c e s o f tra f f ic s to p s is43 akin, in t hi s r es pect , t o t he deba t e aboutthe cons t i tut i onal cons equenc es of el ectr oni c s ur vei l l ance orcomput ercopy i ng. See , e. g. , O ri n S . K e rr , Sear ches and Sei z ur es in a D igi t al W o rld , 119 H ar v. L

. R ev. 531, 561 ( 2005) ( ponder i ng w hether el ectr oni c copy i ng of com put er fi l es cons t i tut es a “s ei zur e, ” and if so w h a t th e a p p ro p ria te F o u rth A m e n d m e n t re m e d ysh o u ld b e).
T he Supr eme C our ts t r es s ed i n H uds on th a t in det er m i ni ng w hether a par t i cul arFour t h A m endment vi ol at i on i s causal lyr el at ed t o a part i cul archal l enged pi ece of evi dence i n s uch a w ay as t o t r i gger t he excl us i onary rul e, w e mustl ook notonl yt o t he l ogi cal r el at i ons hi p betw een the vi ol at i on and the di s coveryof t he evi dence , butal s o t o t he natur e of t he per s onal and soci al i nt er es t s t he C ons t i tut i on pr ot ect s , t he pr eval ence of t he i l lega l p o l i ce pr act i ce a ti s s ue, t he det err entval ue of the s uppr es s i on r emedy , and the l i kel ypr act i cal effec ts o f a p a rt ic u la r r u le

. S ee H uds on , s l i p op. at8- 13 ( det er m i ni ng cons t i tut i onal s upp res s i on r equi r ement s bas ed on evol vi ng so cial reali ti es).
A ppl y i n g t hes e t es t s , w e fi nd t hatthe purpos es of t he Four t h A m endment ar e bes t s er ved by ext endi ng t he bubbl e of proxim at e causati on t o v ehicl e passeng ers . P assengers, no l ess t han dr i ver s , have a cons t i tut iona l i nt er es ti n pr ot ect i on fr om u n re a so n a b le s e izu re s. T w o o f th e m o re c o n stitu tio n a lly tro u b lin g v a rie ties o f

u n re a so n a b le se izu re s, b o th im p lica ted in t hi s cas e, ar e thos e thatoccurw hen pol i ce s t op vehi cl es bas ed o n an o n y m o u s ti p s, o r ba sed o n the ra ce o f th e v eh icl e’s occupa nt s. W h il e the Supr eme C our tm aybe r i ghtaboutt he i ncr ea s e d p r o f

e s s i o n a l i s m of

p o l i c e a n d t h e r o b u s t n e s s o f t heT hat t hi s pr act i ce i s l egi t i m at e i s at pr esen t bey ond 24 co n sti tuti o n al ca v il u n d er W hr en . H ow ever, t he ex cesses i t s use per i odi cal l yengende r s have notgone unnot i ced, and i n r ece nt y ear s m anypol i ce de par t m ent s have s tudi ed and a dopt ed p ro c e d u ra l re f

o rm s th a t m a y b e im p lem e n ted to m o n ito r v e h icle s t ops and r educe t he i nci dence of racial pr ofi l i ng and other a b u s e s o f

th e s e iz u re p o w e r o n th e ro a d s . See , e. g. , R o b in S h e p a rd E n g e l, e t a l., P ro jec t o n P o lice -C iti

ze n C o n ta c ts ( 2004) (re p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n s p re p a r e d f o r P e n n sy lv a n ia S tate Pol i ce Com m i s s i onerC ol onel J eff r eyM i l l er ) ; N ew J er s ey S e n a te J u d ic ia ry C o m m itte e , T he N ew Jersey Sena t e Jud i ci ary C om m i t t ee’s I

nves t igat i on of

R aci al P ro

f i l i ng and the N

ew J e rs e y S t a t e Po l i c e : Ove r v i e w an d Re c o mm e n da t i o ns ( 2001) ( r ecom m endat i ons forr eform s i n w ake of w i del y - publ i ci zed r aci al pr ofi l i ng i nci dent s )

. Such r eform s can pr ovi de s i gni fi cant 44 § 1983 pl ai nt i ffs ’ bar , w e cannot s ay t hatei t herr aci al pr ofi l i ng o r re lian c e o n a n o n y m o u s tip s h a s d e c lin e d in f re q u e n c yin r ece nty ear s , ort hatci vi l l aw s ui t s w i l l adequa t ely d et ers uch pr act i ces . N orcan w e s ayt hatt he var i ous ot hercat egor i es of cas es t hatgi ve r i s e t o pas s engers uppr es s i on m ot i ons are r ar e, decreasi ng , suffici entl yi nterna llydis ci pli ned , or ot herw i se d e ter re d . F u rth e rm o re , A m e ric a n s s p e n d m o re tim e in c a rs w ith e a c h p a s s in g y e a r, s ee , e. g. , D e p ’t o f T ra n s p o rt a tio n , 2001 N at i onal H ous ehol d Trav el Sur vey , avai l abl e at h ttp :/ /w w w .f

h w a .d o t. g o v /p o li c y/o h p i/ n h ts ( r e p o r ti n g “ d r a m a tic i ncr eas es ” i n t i m e s pent dr i vi ng betw een 1969 and 2000) , and as th e c irc u it ca se s d e sc rib e d a b o v e d e m o n stra te, th e u se o f tra f f ic s t ops as i nves t i gat or yt ool s i s a w i des pr ead a nd s t andar d pol i ce pr act i ce. 24p ro tec tio n f o r e q u a l p ro tec tio n a n d d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts, in addi t i on t o Four t h A m endment r i ght s , and w e r ecogni ze thatt he i nc e n t i v e s c r e a t e d b yt h e e x c l u s i o n a r yru l e h a v e a s i g n i fi cant effect on p oli ce beh avior

. A l l ow ing u nfett ered use against p a ss e n g e rs o f e v id e n c e o b tain e d d u rin g u n c o n stitu tio n a l traf f ic s t ops coul d under m i ne thes e r eform eff or t s . A nd unl ike t he knock -and- announce rul e, t he cons t i tut i onal pr ohi bi t i ons on rac ial p rof

il ing an d reli an ce o n an o n y m o u s ti p s d o g o the h ea rt o f th e v a lid ity o f th e u n d e rly in g p o lice a c tio n itse lf , n o t m e re ly t he met hod of i t s exec ut i on. 45 F urth e rm ore, w ere w e t o all ow t he g ov ernm ent t o u se a g a in st M o sle yth e e v id e n c e re c o v e re d in th is c a se , w e w o u ld w eake n, i ndeed ne ar l yevi s cer at e, t he Supr eme C ourt ’ s cl earand unani m ous comm and i n Fl or i da v
. J

. L. th a t a n a n o n y m o u s tip is a cons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci entbas i s foran i nves t i gat or ydet ent i on. See 5 2 9 U. S. a t 2 7 3

- 7 4

. T h e S u p r e me Co u r td i d n o t , we p re su m e , co n tem p late th a t its p lain c o n stitu tio n a l h o ld in g c o u ld be s i m pl yi gnor ed as t o al l occupa nt s of a ve hi cl e othert han the d riv e r, an d w e w ill n o t li g h tlyc o u n ten a n c e su c h a re su lt.
N or , fi nal l y , i s t he re duct i o ad absur dum pr es ent ed above (sta tio n a rym o b ile h o m e v e rsu s m o v in g m o b ile h o m e ) re a llya ll th a t ab su rd

. T h e lev e l o f ju stif ica tio n re q u ire d to su p p o rt a v a lid cars ear ch i s extr emel yl ow , as w e expl ai ned above, as compar ed w i t h thatrequi red t o sup po rta vali d h om e sear ch. M ost obvi ous l y , i n contr adist i nct i on t o hous e s ear ches , t her e i s no g e n e ra l w a rr a n t r e q u ir e m e n t f o r c a r s e a rc h e s . See , e.g. , Mar yland v. D

ys on , 5 2 7 U .S . 4 6 5 , 4 6 7 (1 9 9 9 ). T h u s a ll o cc u p an ts of

ca rs, d ri v e rs an d p asse n g ers a li k e, are46 overw hel m i ngl ym or e l i kel y t o be s ubj ectt o pol i ce s crut i ny w hen on the r oad than w hen athom e. O f cour s e, i l l egal pol i ce entr i es i nt o and s ear ches of hom es do occur . B utt he fr equenc y w ith w h ich p o lice e f f e c t f o r c ib le e n tries in to h o m e s is i ncompar abl yl es s t han the fr equenc yw i t h w hi ch t hey pul l over car s , and the t eac hi ng of H uds on is tha t suc h so cial fa cts m att er. I f w arr ant l es s hous e s ear ches w er e as comm on as r oads i de t r a f f i c - s t o p s e a r c h e s , f

o re x a mpl e , t h e n p e r h a p s t h e p r o t e c t i on aff or ded hous egues t s i n Mi nnes ot a v. O l s on , 495 U

. S. 91 (1 9 9 0 ), m ig h t h a v e b e e n b r o a d e r. T h e e x c lu sio n a ryru le exp res ses, i nh erent l yand al w ay s, a st and ard of reasonab l eness t hat evol ves al on g w i t h p oli ce pract i ces and soci al no rm s.
T he exc l us i onaryrul e i s a j udge- m ade r emedydes i gned t o det er i l l egal pol i ce conduct

. T he H uds on deci s i on has m ade it cle a r , if

th e re w a s e v e r a n yd o u b t, th a t d e c isio n s a b o u t b o th t he appl i cat i on of t he rul e ar e pr agmat i c dec i s i ons r equi r i ng p rac ti ca l w isdo m rathe r t h an sy ll o g ism s . Ju sti ce S ca li a’s opi ni on epi t om i zes s uch pr agmat i c bal anci ng, “i nt erpr et i ng t he C ons t i tuti on i n l i ghtof i t s ow n pr act i cal conce r n foran ac t i ve lib e rt yth a t is its e lf

a p ra c tic a l p ro c e s s ,” S te p h e n B re y e r, A ct i ve L ib e rty 74 ( 2005)

. I ti s i n t hats pi r i tt hatw e dec i de thi s cas e.
I V.
T h e ca ri n w hi ch M os l eyw as r i di ng w as pul l ed over il lega l l y . M os l eyw as i l l egal l ys ei zed the mom entt he ca rw as pul l ed over

. T he s t oppi ng of t he vehi cl e w as a but

- forcaus e of t he di s covery of t he guns

. T he bubbl e of c aus at i on w hi ch l i nks a tr aff i c s t op t o a s ubs equents ear ch ext ends t o al l occupa nt s of t he s t opped vehi cl e. T o o v er come M os l ey ’ s s uppr es s i on47 m oti on , t herefore, t he g ov ernm ent w ou l d hav e had t o est abli sh one of the tr adi t i onal exce pt i ons t o t he Won gSun rul e: a t t e n u a t i o n , i n e v i t a b l e d i s c o v e r y , i n d e p e n d e n ts o u r c e , o rs o me i nt er veni ng act or event s uffi ci entt o pur ge the t ai ntof t he i l l egal s t op. T he gover nm entr ai s ed no s uch exc ept i on att r i al , and raises n o n e o n ap p ea l. W e the ref o re h o ld tha t th e g u n s w ere frui tof t he poi s onous t r ee a nd m us tbe s uppr es s ed.
A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l vaca t e M os l ey ’ s convi ct i on, and r e ma n d t h e c a s e t o t h e Di s t r i c tCou r tf o rf u r t h e rp r o c e edi ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.