Opinion ID: 2005211
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Additional Factors.

Text: Consideration of the unique facts of this case as applied to the Brown factors convinces us to conclude that Hogan's consent was not obtained through exploitation. Additional factors and considerations also support this conclusion. In his treatise, LaFave states that despite an initial illegal search, if the police do not find incriminating evidence against the person who subsequently consented to the second search, the illegality of the first search will not necessarily invalidate the consent given by one who knows that the police do not claim any authority to continue the search without consent. LaFave § 8.2(d), at 86. In this case, the officers did not find any incriminating evidence against Hogan in their illegal search of the Hoffert garage. Moreover, the credible testimony reveals that Hogan had no reason to believe the police could search Lane's residence without her consent. This is not, therefore, a case where the illegality of the first search should necessarily invalidate Hogan's consent. In addition, LaFave has observed how a consent search at a location different from the initial illegality impacts the outcome of the exploitation test: If the purported consent is to search a place different than that previously subjected to an illegal search, then it is much more difficult to support the assertion that the consent was a surrender to an implied claim of authority; police activity in searching place A may fairly be said to be a manifestation of authority to search place A but not place B. But it is at this point that the Wong Sun exploitation test takes on an importance as an alternative ground [in addition to the voluntariness ground] for invalidating the consent. If, for example, the prior illegal search provides a significant lead in terms of indicating what other evidence they ought to seek, or where they ought to seek it, or if the illegal search provided the means of gaining access to the person from whom the consent was obtained, then a consent obtained by exploitation of that information would constitute fruit of the earlier illegal search. LaFave § 8.2(d), at 88 (emphasis added). Thus, LaFave agrees that a consent case involving a different location from the illegal search often works against exploitation because it undercuts any claim the subsequent consent search was a manifestation of the initial illegal search. Yet, LaFave emphasizes the added circumstance of a different location is not dispositive. Instead, the exploitation test, and the accompanying factors, are still utilized to determine if the illegal search at the first location gave police a significant lead as to what other evidence they should look for at the second location, where to find other evidence in the second location, or a means to gain access to someone who could consent to a search of the second location. The discussion of the exploitation test by LaFave in the context of a different location case summarizes much of our prior discussion of the Brown factors. Moreover, it provides additional clarity to resolving cases involving a different location, and confirms our analysis in this case. Here, the illegal search of the garage only provided police with information that Lane either possessed or was packaging methamphetamine in Hoffert's garage. Police did not acquire any identifiable leads from this discovery that directed them to what other evidence they should look for in another location, where other evidence would be found in another location, or how they could gain access to the person who ultimately consented to the search of the other location. In other words, there was nothing about the incriminating evidence illegally discovered in the garage that directed police to Lane's residence or to Hogan. At best, the discovery by police only gave them the vague notion that Lane could have additional drugs or other incriminating evidence in his residence located in the vicinity. However, this type of police conjecture, suspicion, and speculation, derived from the illegal search, is too tenuous to connect the consent with the unlawful entry under the exploitation test. If it was sufficient, there would be no point of utilizing the factors we have identified to determine the result. Consequently, the exploitation test would have no meaning or purpose because the discovery of an illegal act or evidence in one location could always be tied in a vague sense to the suspicion of some illegal act or evidence in another location. Similarly, a connection between the illegal entry and the subsequent consent is not established because police happened to observe Hogan driving a vehicle to Lane's residence while they were standing outside of the garage following the illegal entry. The incriminating evidence acquired from the illegal entry gave no clue as to Hogan's impending arrival at the residence or as to the manner police could conduct a search of the apartment. At this point it is important to remember that [e]xclusion may not be premised on the mere fact that a constitutional violation was a `but-for' cause of obtaining evidence. Hudson, ___ U.S. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2160, 165 L.Ed.2d at 61. We freely acknowledge the police in this case would not have approached Hogan and asked for her consent to search her house if they had not first entered Hoffert's garage and illegally arrested Lane. However, this type of but for analysis is not enough to establish exploitation of the illegal activity. See id. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2164, 165 L.Ed.2d at 64-66 (Our cases show that but-for causality is only a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for suppression.). We also observe that our analysis of the attenuation doctrine does not serve to resurrect the good faith exception by its consideration of the purpose and flagrancy of the police conduct. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (establishing the good faith exception in federal courts); State v. Cline, 617 N.W.2d 277, 292-93 (Iowa 2000) ([W]e hold that the good faith exception is incompatible with the Iowa Constitution.), disavowed on other grounds, Turner, 630 N.W.2d at 606 n. 2. The good faith exception addresses the circumstances where police rely in good faith on an invalid warrant, see Leon, 468 U.S. at 926, 104 S.Ct. at 3422, 82 L.Ed.2d at 701 (modifying the exclusionary rule to include the good faith exception so that evidence seized pursuant to an invalid warrant may still be admissible), or unconstitutional statute, see Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 107 S.Ct. 1160, 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987) (admitting evidence seized from a warrantless search made legal by statute because, even though the statute was unconstitutional, the police acted in good faith), as a means to avoid the application of the exclusionary rule. An exploitation analysis, on the other hand, deals with the dissimilar situation of looking at the connection between the illegality and the subsequent evidence or consent, as a means to determine if the exclusionary rule should apply to the latter event. Flagrant and purposeful police misconduct is examined only because it tends to support exploitation, while the absence of flagrant and purposeful misconduct tends to support attenuation. Thus, good faith by police does not transform the attenuation doctrine into a good faith exception. The purpose of the police conduct is examined only as it relates to the impact of the conduct on the subsequent collection of evidence or the subsequent consent to search. We recognize the purpose and flagrancy of police conduct, under the attenuation doctrine, is considered the most important factor because it is most closely tied to the purpose of the exclusionary ruledeterring police misconduct. See Simpson, 439 F.3d at 496. Yet, this observation does not imply that any rule admitting evidence by consideration of the good faith of the police is a good faith exception. We did not reject the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule because we rejected the notion that exclusionary rules should deter police misconduct, cf. Monteleone, 123 P.3d at 783 (finding exploitation and noting that policy supported their conclusion because [t]he objective of the exclusionary rule in New Mexico is not to deter police misconduct but to `effectuate in the pending case the constitutional right of the accused to be free from unreasonable search and seizure (quoting State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431, 863 P.2d 1052, 1067 (1993))), but because the good faith exception did not also vindicate the other purposes of the exclusionary rule: to provide a remedy for a constitutional violation and to protect the integrity of the judiciary, see Cline, 617 N.W.2d at 289. Consequently, and in contrast to the good faith exception, the attenuation limitation does not fail to provide a remedy for the defendant, or injure the integrity of the judiciary. A defendant is not entitled to a remedy when attenuation is found, not because the officers acted in good faith, but because sufficient attenuation exists that demonstrates the evidence used against him was not an exploitation of any violation of his constitutional rights. Thus, Lane's remedy for the constitutional violation that occurred was already provided by the district court with the exclusion of the evidence seized at the Hoffert garage. For the same reason our application of the attenuation limitation does not injure the integrity of the judiciary. In this case, where there is sufficient attenuation, we are not condoning a constitutional violation. Instead, we are recognizing the violation has nothing to do (other than but-for causation) with the consent and subsequent evidence seized. In conclusion, we find Hogan's consent and the evidence seized as a result was not an exploitation of the prior illegal entry into Hoffert's garage and the illegal arrest of Lane. Instead, there was sufficient attenuation between the events. In addition, Hogan's consent was voluntary. Thus, although the district court used an incomplete analysis, we affirm its decision to deny the defendant's motion to suppress.