Opinion ID: 65023
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant Hearngrounds for entering room 1711

Text: Hearn contends that the district court committed reversible error by denying his motion to suppress the evidence. He argues that no exigent circumstances excused the officers' warrantless entry into room 1711, or, alternatively, that the officers created the exigent circumstances through their own actions. We need not address Hearn's arguments. Even assuming the unlawfulness of the officers' entry into room 1711, the district court's denial of Hearn's motion to suppress must be affirmed based on the untainted portions of the search warrant obtained by the officers shortly after their entry. See Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir.1992) (This court can affirm the district court's judgment on any grounds supported by the record.). Under the independent source rule, information which is received through an illegal source is considered to be cleanly obtained when it arrives through an independent source. Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 538-39, 108 S.Ct. 2529, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988) (quoting United States v. Silvestri, 787 F.2d 736, 739 (1st Cir.1986)). The Supreme Court has held that when evidence initially unlawfully seized is subsequently obtained via a search warrant based on independent information, the independent source rule applies to both evidence seen for the first time during the lawful search and evidence seen in plain view at the time of the warrantlessM search. Id. at 541-42, 108 S.Ct. 2529. This circuit undertakes a two-part analysis to determine whether the independent source rule applies: (1) does the warrant affidavit, when purged of tainted information gained through the initial illegal entry, contain sufficient remaining facts to constitute probable cause (`probable cause'); and (2) did the illegal search affect or motivate the officers' decision to procure the search warrant (`effect of the illegal entry'). United States v. Hassan, 83 F.3d 693, 697 (5th Cir.1996). The search warrant obtained by the officers following their entry into room 1711 satisfies both prongs of this two-part analysis. The warrant's affidavit contains ten numbered paragraphs. The first nine paragraphs describe, in detail, the undercover drug purchase that the confidential informant made from Hearn and Blanton in room 1711. Those paragraphs also describe the reliability of the informant and the particular drug evidence she saw while in room 1711. Paragraph tenthe only paragraph that contains information obtained during the officers' purported illegal entrysimply lists items that the officers saw in plain view (more methamphetamine) and notes that the officers did not conduct an actual search at that point. Thus, it is clear that the affidavit, once purged of the information obtained through the officers' allegedly unlawful entry, was sufficient to give the officers probable cause to search room 1711. Moreover, because the officers had begun preparing the search warrant application well before their purported illegal entry indeed, they began preparing the application immediately following the undercover purchaseit is clear that information obtained during the purported illegal entry did not motivate the officers to seek the warrant. The district court's denial of Hearn's motion to suppress is therefore affirmed.