Opinion ID: 1288237
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inevitable Discovery Of Evidence Recovered From The Hauanios' Home

Text: The prosecution next contends that, based on the record before us, even if Detective Guillermo's entrance into the Hauanios' home constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the United States and/or Hawai`i Constitutions, the evidence recovered from the subsequent search of the Hauanios' home should not be suppressed because it would have been inevitably discovered by the police via lawful means. Thus, the prosecution claims that the trial court erred in issuing COL 5(a), which set aside the warrant to search the Hauanios' home and the evidence recovered from the search because the basis of the search warrant was the information provided by [Detective] Guillermo about his recovery of the cocaine from the Hauanios' master bedroom[.]
We have stated that `[a] subsequent search even under warrant based upon the evidence obtained in the former tainted search is also tainted.' Brighter, 63 Haw. at 100, 621 P.2d at 379 (quoting State v. Boynton, 58 Haw. 530, 535, 574 P.2d 1330, 1334 (1978)). However, the exclusionary rule does not preclude the use of evidence derived from knowledge of incriminating facts `gained from an independent source. ' Id. at 100, 621 P.2d at 379 (quoting Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392, 40 S.Ct. 182, 183, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920)) (emphasis added). See also Pau`u, 72 Haw. at 512, 824 P.2d at 837 (holding that the [prosecution] failed to meet its burden of showing that the taint of the prior illegal search had been dissipated or that there was an independent source which induced Pau`u to waive his constitutional rights.). Thus, [w]here the independent information is gained prior to the illegal search, the resulting evidence is not suppressed. Brighter, 63 Haw. at 100, 621 P.2d at 379 (citing Peterson v. United States, 411 F.2d 1074, 1078-79 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 396 U.S. 920, 90 S.Ct. 247, 24 L.Ed.2d 199 (1969)). The foregoing case law illustrates that this court recognizes an independent source exception to the exclusionary rule. Under the independent source exception, a search warrant is not constitutionally defective because it is based, in part, on illegally seized evidence where sufficient probable cause exists to issue the warrant without relying on the suppressed evidence. Brighter, 63 Haw. at 101, 621 P.2d at 379 (citation omitted). This is not the case, however, if the tainted information provided by the officer as a basis for obtaining the warrant is the only information submitted in the affidavit supporting the warrant. See id. In the instant case, the affidavit submitted by Officer Diego in support of the search warrant alleged no information other than that provided by Detective Guillermo at the officers briefing regarding mainly his observations made at the Hauanios' home when he entered without the Hauanios' consent. The affidavit provides in relevant part: