Opinion ID: 2313621
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Consent is tainted by the illegal seizure

Text: The absence of a reasonable basis for a Fourth Amendment seizure bears directly upon the validity of Lopez-Vazquez's subsequent consent to search. If consent is given after an illegal seizure, that prior illegality taints the consent to search [36] because the primary purpose of the federal exclusionary rule is to deter future unlawful police conduct and safeguard constitutional rights. [37] Notwithstanding this purpose, taint may be purged and the evidence may be admissible through one of the doctrinal exceptions to the exclusionary rule, [38] such as the independent source doctrine, [39] the inevitable discovery doctrine, [40] the exigent circumstances doctrine, [41] and the attenuation doctrine. [42] The attenuation doctrine exception permits courts to find that the poisonous taint of an unlawful search and seizure has dissipated when the causal connection between the unlawful police conduct and the acquisition of the challenged evidence becomes sufficiently attenuated. [43] Thus, even if there is an illegal search or seizure, direct or derivative evidence, such as consent, may still be admissible if the taint is sufficiently purged. [44] In Brown v. Illinois , the United States Supreme Court explained that courts should consider three factors when determining whether evidence that is impermissibly obtained may be sufficiently purged of the primary taint and admitted through the attenuation doctrine: (1) the temporal proximity of the illegality and the acquisition of the evidence to which the instant objection is made; (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official conduct. [45] No single factor is dispositive in determining whether the evidence should be suppressed. [46] Applying these attenuation factors in this case, the record does not demonstrate that Lopez-Vazquez's consent was purged of the primary taint. The consent occurred during an illegal seizure. There were no intervening circumstances that would have provided independent probable cause or would otherwise have operated to dissipate the primary taint. These two considerations outweigh the fact that Detective Silva's conduct in asking for consent was neither egregious nor a flagrant abuse of police power. [47] Accordingly, the evidence that was obtained following the invalid Terry stop must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. The Superior Court should have granted Lopez-Vazquez's motion to suppress.