Opinion ID: 2609795
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicability of the Independent Source Doctrine.

Text: The State argues that the evidence admitted was obtained through a source independent of Hazelwood's notification, and thus was not subject to exclusion. The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly recognized that a statutory grant of use and derivative use immunity, like the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, allow[s] the government to prosecute using evidence from legitimate independent sources.  Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 461, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 1665, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972) (emphasis added). However, once a defendant shows that he or she testified under a statutory grant of immunity, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the evidence it proposes to use is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony. Id. at 460, 92 S.Ct. at 1665. We must determine, then, whether the State has met its burden of proving that the evidence admitted against Hazelwood was obtained from a source wholly independent of the notification compelled by the statute. The State argues that upon grounding the Exxon Valdez, Hazelwood incurred two separate legal reporting duties. Under the oil spill statute, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(5), he was required to report that he was discharging oil. Under the marine casualties reporting statute, 46 U.S.C. § 6101, [4] and its implementing regulations, he was required to report that the ship had grounded. The marine casualty statute and regulations also require that the person making the report provide additional information, such as the identity and location of the ship. 46 C.F.R. § 4.05-1, -5 (1992). Parsing Hazelwood's radio transmission, the State argues that only one part of it is protected under the grant of immunity. According to the State, Hazelwood's statement that the tanker evidently [was] leaking some oil was sufficient to fulfill his obligation under the oil spill statute. This statement, the State concedes, is covered by the statute's immunity clause. The State argues, however, that any additional information provided by Hazelwood, specifically we've fetched up ah hard aground north of Goose Island, off Bligh Reef, was reported pursuant to the marine casualty statute, and thus amounted to a source of evidence wholly independent of the immunized statement. [5] We cannot accept the State's arguments. As noted by the court of appeals, the State's argument rests on the premise that, under the oil spill reporting statute, Hazelwood was required to report nothing more than the fact that his ship was discharging oil. Hazelwood v. State, 836 P.2d 943, 948 (Alaska App. 1992). Interpreting the statute to require no more than this would be unreasonable. Congress initially enacted the oil spill statute as part of legislation designed to improve the nation's water quality. [6] Viewed in light of this overall purpose, the notification process required by the statute must be construed to require that regulatory officials be provided with adequate information, such as the location of the spill, so that they may begin immediate remedial measures. Thus we decline to hold that Hazelwood's statement concerning the location of the vessel was made solely to comply with the marine casualty statute and therefore provided an independent source. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly stated in Kastigar that the government must prove that the evidence it proposes to use is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent  of the immunized statement. 406 U.S. at 460, 92 S.Ct. at 1665 (emphasis added). In this case, there is only one source: Hazelwood's single radio transmission made shortly after the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef. The State asks us to accept the contention that Hazelwood's radioed statement to the Coast Guard was immunized at one point and an independent source at another. The initial report cannot be divided: it was a single radio transmission made shortly after the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef. We cannot accept this argument in the face of Kastigar 's requirement that the independent source be wholly independent from the immunized source. We therefore AFFIRM this aspect of the court of appeals' decision.