Opinion ID: 195344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Inclusion of Tainted Information

Text: 28 Dr. Ford argues that the search warrant cannot be considered independent because the search warrant affidavit included observations made during the warrantless search of the home. The inclusion of tainted evidence in the affidavit in support of the application for a search warrant seriously undercuts the true independence of the warrant as a valid subsequent legal means. Aplt.'s Br. at 16. According to Dr. Ford, because the warrant contained such tainted information, it is impossible to know with any certainty whether the magistrate would have issued the warrant in the absence of the tainted information. This uncertainty, Dr. Ford contends, renders the search warrant suspect and mandates against the application of the inevitable discovery rule. 29 For support, Dr. Ford cites Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 108 S.Ct. 2529, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988). In Murray, the Supreme Court considered the independence of legal means under another exception to the warrant requirement--the independent source doctrine. 30 The ultimate question, therefore, is whether the search pursuant to warrant was in fact a genuinely independent source of the information and tangible evidence at issue here. This would not have been the case ... if information obtained during that entry was presented to the Magistrate and affected his decision to issue the warrant. 31 Id. at 542, 108 S.Ct. at 2536. Contrary to Dr. Ford's contention, the Court did leave some room for speculation when making this determination. To determine whether the warrant was independent of the illegal entry, one must ask whether it would have been sought even if what actually happened had not occurred. Id. at 542 n. 3, 108 S.Ct. at 2536 n. 3. Dr. Ford also cites Nix for the proposition that speculation may not play any role in a determination under the inevitable discovery rule. [I]nevitable discovery involves no speculative elements but focuses on demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment and does not require a departure from the usual burden of proof at suppression hearings. Nix, 467 U.S. at 444 n. 5, 104 S.Ct. at 2509 n. 5. 32 When reviewing affidavits containing tainted evidence, courts regularly set aside the tainted information and then determine if there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 172, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2684, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). This court has applied the same analysis. [The illegally obtained information] should be set to one side (as the district court did) and the remaining content of the affidavit examined to determine whether there was probable cause to search, apart from the tainted averments. United States v. Veillette, 778 F.2d 899, 904 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1115, 106 S.Ct. 1970, 90 L.Ed.2d 654 (1986). 33 Here, the district court performed precisely this analysis. 34 [A] valid warrant to search Ford's home would have issued despite the information obtained in the course of the protective sweep.... If one were to strike from the supporting affidavit any and all references other than those to the express mail package in question and the events leading to its arrival in defendant's dwelling, the search warrant would have issued based on probable cause. 35 Aplt.'s App. at 29. This finding cannot be seriously doubted. We set forth a portion of the affidavit to underscore this holding. 36 2. This morning I received a search warrant for an Express Mail package suspected of containing controlled substances.... 37 3. The Express Mail package was addressed to Dr. Jeff Ford, 90 Amherst Road, So. Hadley, MA 01075. 38 4. Upon executing the search warrant I found approximately 30 grams of a substance that field tested positive for methamphetamine, a Schedule III controlled substance. 39 . . . . . 40 6. At approximately 2:15 p.m. Ford picked up the Express Mail package and drove to his home at 90 Amherst Road, South Hadley, Massachusetts (the Premises). 41 7. At approximately 2:45 p.m. Ford was arrested by another U.S. Postal Inspector at the Premises. 42 Rec., doc. 29, ex. B at 1. It requires no speculation to determine that the excised affidavit supports a finding of probable cause. 4 We therefore reject Dr. Ford's second attack on the independence of the warrant. 5