Opinion ID: 900895
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Expanded Independent Source Doctrine

Text: [¶ 34.] Notwithstanding these Murray disqualifications, several state and federal courts have expanded the independent source doctrine to allow partially tainted warrants if the remaining untainted information establishes probable cause. See, e.g., Weiss, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 337, 978 P.2d at 1263; Revenaugh, 992 P.2d at 774-75; Herrold, 962 F.2d at 1141-42; Restrepo, 966 F.2d at 970. Generally, courts have adopted this expansion of the independent source doctrine because they were unwilling to put the police in a position worse than they would have been in had they not acted illegally. See Herrold, 962 F.2d at 1141. [7] [¶ 35.] Under the expansion, the question is whether the remaining information presented to the magistrate, after the tainted evidence is excluded, contains adequate facts from which the magistrate could have concluded that probable cause existed for the issuance of the search warrant. Revenaugh, 992 P.2d at 774 (additional citations omitted). See also Weiss, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 337, 978 P.2d at 1263 (stating if the [affidavit] contains probable cause apart from the improper information, then the warrant is lawful and the independent source doctrine applies ...). [¶ 36.] However, this affidavit fails even under that expansion. As the California Supreme Court noted in Weiss, the officers [may not be] prompted to obtain the warrant by what they observed during the initial entry. Id. (citing Restrepo, 966 F.2d at 970). Here, the police were partially prompted to return and obtain a warrant because of what they observed on December 14. Therefore, the expanded independent source doctrine cannot save the evidence from the exclusionary rule because the observations from both visits must be redacted, and the remaining anonymous letter fails to establish probable cause. [8]