Opinion ID: 2673199
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Independent-Source Doctrine

Text: [¶17] “Even though evidence may be characterized as fruit of the poisonous tree, it can be admitted if it was not produced by exploiting the illegally acquired information.” Gregg , 2000 ND 154, ¶ 39, 615 N.W.2d 515. This process of “unpoisoning” the fruit of the illegal search may be achieved through the independent-source exception. Id. at ¶ 40. The independent-source doctrine allows the introduction of evidence that was initially discovered during, or as a result of an unlawful search, but that was later obtained independently from lawful activities that have not been tainted by the initial illegality. Murray v. United States , 487 U.S. 533, 537 (1988). The doctrine “allows admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation.” Gregg , 2000 ND 154, ¶ 52, 615 N.W.2d 515. [¶18] “[I]f an illegal entry occurred prior to seeking a warrant, the search pursuant to the warrant, in order to be valid, had to be based upon a source independent of the illegal entry. State v. Winkler , 1997 ND 144, ¶ 12, 567 N.W.2d 330. “The ultimate question . . . is whether the search pursuant to warrant was in fact a genuinely independent source of the information and tangible evidence.” State v. Winkler , 552 N.W.2d 347, 353 (N.D. 1996). In making such a determination, this Court invokes a two-step analysis. Id. “First, the warrant must be supported by probable cause derived from sources independent of the illegal search; and second, the decision to seek the warrant must not be prompted by observations made during the illegal search.” Gregg , 2000 ND 154, ¶ 54, 615 N.W.2d 515. [¶19] Applying the first step of analysis, the application and affidavit for a search warrant contained facts independent from and directly culled from the unreasonable search. In the affidavit supporting the search warrant application, Detective Gress stated: On 01/09/2013, the Cass County Sheriff’s Office received a complaint from staff at the Day’s Inn hotel in Casselton for an odor of marijuana. Upon arrival Deputy Eric Swenson and Deputy Tonya Grabinger were able to smell what they know through their training and experience as a police officer to be the odor of marijuana coming from Room 104. Room 104 is currently being rented by Brian Alan Kurec [sic]. To that extent, the affidavit contained information derived from sources independent of the illegal search. That information alone was sufficient to meet the probable cause requirement for a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. See State v. Schmalz , 2008 ND 27, ¶ 20, 744 N.W.2d 734 (“The mere smell of marijuana, as detected by a trained and experienced officer, has been held by this Court to create a sufficient factual basis upon which to establish probable cause.”). [¶20] However, in the next paragraph of the affidavit, Detective Gress proffered information that was procured from the illegal search: Deputies spoke with Rebecca Jean Larson who is staying in Room 104. Rebecca stated that Rebecca may or may not have just smoked marijuana in Room 104. Rebecca would not consent to a search of the room, however [she] told deputies that Rebecca did have a medical marijuana card and that Rebecca did have marijuana in a Hertz rental vehicle that Rebecca had rented. . . . . Deputy Grabinger stated that all five (5) persons were told they were detained and to stay where they were at; Kurec [sic] went into the bathroom with a bag and said that Kurec was going to brush Kurec’s teeth. Deputy Grabinger attempted to keep the door open while Kurec brushed Kurec’s teeth but was blocked by Larson. Deputy Grabinger heard the water running and Deputy Grabinger stated that there was an overpowering odor of what Deputy Grabinger knows through Deputy Grabinger’s training and experience as a police officer to be the odor of marijuana. Deputy Grabinger then order[ed] Kurec to open the door or the door would be breached. Kurec didn’t open the door and Deputy Grabinger breached entry. Deputy Swenson handcuffed Kurec and stated that Kurec’s arms were wet and appeared to have what Deputy Swenson knows through Deputy Swenson’s training and experience as a police officer to be marijuana on Kurec’s arms. Deputy Swenson asked Kurec what Kurec was doing and Kurec replied what do you think I’m doing . . . I was trying to get rid of it. This Court has instructed, “illegally obtained evidence cannot be used to establish probable cause to issue a search warrant. To determine whether probable cause exists, we excise the tainted information from the affidavit and consider the remaining legal evidence presented to the issuing magistrate.” State v. Fields , 2005 ND 15, ¶ 6, 691 N.W.2d 233 (citation omitted). Here, drawing out the “poison” from the search warrant affidavit still leaves the vestiges of probable cause. The marijuana odor detected by the deputies is sufficient for the probable cause that is needed to secure a warrant. See Schmalz , 2008 ND 27, ¶ 20, 744 N.W.2d 734. [¶21] The second tier of the independent-source analysis provides that “the decision to seek the warrant must not be prompted by observations made during the illegal search.” Gregg , 2000 ND 154, ¶ 54, 615 N.W.2d 515. In Murray , the United States Supreme Court held that a search pursuant to a warrant would not be of an independent-source “if the agents’ decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what they had seen during the initial [illegal] entry, or if information obtained during that entry was presented to the Magistrate and affected his decision to issue the warrant.” Murray , 487 U.S. at 542 (footnote omitted). This Court has stated that “ Murray instructs that . . . the warrant is nonetheless tainted if the illegally obtained facts prompted the [officers’] decision to seek the warrant.” Winkler , 552 N.W.2d 347, 354 (N.D. 1996) (quotation omitted). [¶22] Here the question is whether the officers’ decision to seek the warrant was independently based on the employee complaint and officers’ smell of marijuana, or also a product of the subsequent illegal search. It is conceivable that the officers’ decision to seek the warrant may, to some extent, have been based on the illegal search. [¶23] Nevertheless, under our standard of review, we conclude there is sufficient competent evidence in the record supporting the district court’s finding that the initial decision to seek the warrant was not prompted by any observations made during the illegal search. The district court found the deputies were called to the Days Inn by an employee “who smelled a strong scent of marijuana coming from room 104. Based on their training and experience, the deputies were able to confirm this before they knocked on the door to that room. This alone was enough for the deputies to obtain a warrant.” The court also found “Swenson first called for a warrant before the illegal entry yielded any new information of significance.” The court determined the initial decision to seek the warrant was not prompted by any observations made during the illegal entry. The court’s findings are supported by the evidence. [¶24] We conclude the district court did not err in applying the independent-source doctrine. The warrant affidavit, excised of its tainted information, is supported by probable cause derived from sources independent of the illegal search. Additionally, the district court’s finding that the officers’ decision to seek the warrant was not prompted by observations made during the illegal search is supported by sufficient competent evidence in the record.