Court Opinion

ID: 9754097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:43:20.970119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:48.393423
License: Public Domain

OPINION BY
JOHNSON, J.:
¶ 1 The Commonwealth appeals the trial court’s order suppressing medical evidence tending to indicate that Speer Ruey was legally intoxicated when he was involved in a four-car accident that caused injuries to several people and the death of one Clarence Main. The Commonwealth’s appeal requires us to examine the contours of Pennsylvania’s “independent source doctrine,” which the trial court rejected as a basis for admitting the evidence in question. The Commonwealth concedes that the original warrant application which led to the seizure of the blood-alcohol content (BAC) test results in question was technically deficient, but contends that the trial court erred in granting Ruey’s suppression motion because that same evidence was later recovered by means of a proper warrant. The Commonwealth’s interlocutory appeal lies within this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(d), because it has certified that the order in question “will terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution.” Pa.R.A.P. 311(d); see Commonwealth v. Karetny, 837 A.2d 474 (Pa.Super.2003). We agree with the Commonwealth that the trial court should have applied the independent source doctrine under the circumstances of this case, thus we reverse the trial court’s suppression order and remand.
¶2 On March 26, 1999, Ruey was involved in a four-vehicle collision, resulting in injuries to several people and the death of Clarence Main. Ruey eventually was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI), homicide by motor vehicle while DUI, aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI, homicide by vehicle, involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person. On May 2, 2000, Ruey filed a pre-trial motion seeking to suppress all evidence seized by the police as a result of State Trooper Mark Bryan’s search warrant, which provided for the production of all medical records pertaining to the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s (UPMC) treatment of Ruey on or after the date of the accident, and was executed on April 3, 1999. He contended that the search warrant application was not supported by probable cause since Trooper Bryan did not indicate that the information he received from others was rehable or that he believed the information to be credible. Omnibus Pretrial Motion for Relief, 5/2/00, at 3-4. Ruey further .alleged that the application for the search warrant was overly broad and that the search warrant was executed in an untime*562ly manner. Omnibus Pretrial Motion for Relief, 5/2/00, at 4-6.
¶ 3 On November 24, 2000, before the suppression court ruled on Ruey’s motion to suppress, Pennsylvania State Trooper Keith Allen applied for a second search warrant seeking Ruey’s medical records from UPMC, where Ruey was treated following the accident. In his Affidavit of Probable Cause, Trooper Allen alleged that Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel made statements to him indicating that Ruey smelled of alcohol, wept, asked about his dog, and used vulgar language. Warrant Application, 11/24/00, at 2. Trooper Allen indicated that Trooper Bryan told him that he had found an empty bottle of chardonnay near Ruey’s vehicle, and a partially empty bottle of vodka and a partially empty bottle of wine inside Ruey’s vehicle. Warrant Application, 11/24/00, at 2. Trooper Allen averred that Ruey was flown to UPMC for treatment of his injuries and that he had probable cause to believe that the UPMC medical records would indicate evidence of criminal activity. Warrant Application, 11/24/00, at 2-8. In response to Trooper Allen’s application, a district justice issued a second search warrant.
¶ 4 In its November 29, 2000 order the trial court noted the Commonwealth’s concession that the first search warrant was invalid and that the Commonwealth intended to introduce alternative theories to support its position against suppression. On January 22, 2001, the Commonwealth filed a brief in opposition to Ruey’s motion to suppress arguing that the suppression court should not suppress the evidence because the second search warrant had been sworn properly since execution of the first, defective warrant. The Commonwealth’s argument relied principally on the independent source doctrine.' Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion, 1/22/01, at 3-6.
¶ 5 A suppression hearing was held on September 24, 2001. At the hearing, Trooper Bryan testified that he responded to the accident, and upon arrival “set up traffic control, went and observed the different vehicles that were involved, and tried to gather” information. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 9/24/01, at 10. Trooper Bryan interviewed EMS personnel, including Donald Moore and Kenneth Allshouse. N.T., 9/24/01, at 14-15. Moore told Trooper Bryan that Ruey was drunk, crying, and asking after his dog. N.T., 9/24/01, at 14. Trooper Bryan searched Ruey’s vehicle and observed an empty bottle of chardonnay, a partially empty bottle of vodka, and a partially empty bottle of wine. N.T., 9/24/01, at 15. Trooper Bryan asked the hospital to draw Ruey’s blood to determine whether he was legally intoxicated, but the hospital was “[ujncooperative” and “said they were busy and they would do that anyhow.” N.T., 9/24/01, at 17. Trooper Bryan then secured the first search warrant to obtain Ruey’s hospital records. N.T., 9/24/01, at 17.
¶ 6 Trooper Bryan noted that Trooper Allen was present at the accident scene and that “[p]rimarily, he assisted at the scene, and eventually he helped with the reconstruction to take measurements.” N.T., 9/24/01, at 19. Trooper Bryan spoke to Trooper Allen several times about the investigation and Trooper Allen “conferred with [Trooper Bryan] for information he needed for the new search warrant, and just other preliminary stuff .... ” N.T., 9/24/01, at 20. Trooper Bryan provided Trooper Allen with a full and complete copy of his original investigatory file. N.T., 9/24/01, at 21.
¶ 7 Trooper Allen testified at the suppression hearing that he initially went to the accident scene to deliver supplies, but *563that he spoke with another on-scene officer to determine what had happened. N.T., 9/24/01, at 22. Trooper Allen did not conduct interviews at this time, but only assisted with accident reconstruction. N.T., 9/24/01, at 23. Later, a prosecutor asked him to prepare a new search warrant. In preparing a new warrant application, Trooper Allen
spoke with Trooper Bryan; glanced through the report and went over the investigation ...; [he] drafted up a preliminary copy of the affidavit and the search warrant, which was reviewed by [the prosecutor. Allen] reviewed it for spelling corrections and other additional requirements that needed to be fixed in the warrant.
N.T., 9/24/01, at 24. Trooper Allen re-interviewed Mr. Moore, Mr. Allshouse, and Paul Verne, whom Allen identified from Trooper Bryan’s report. N.T., 9/24/01, at 24-25, 31. Trooper Allen testified that “[everything [he] learned after talking to the people was the same” as what Trooper Bryan had learned, that he “looked at what [Trooper Bryan] did and looked to make sure it was correct,” and that he “talked to people again.” N.T., 9/24/01, at 33. The Affidavit of Probable Cause prepared by Trooper Allen contained “the re-interviews ... plus what [the witnesses] said at the preliminary investigation.” N.T., 9/24/01, at 32-33.
¶ 8 Following the hearing, by order entered November 14, 2001, the suppression court granted Ruey’s motion to suppress the medical records obtained by the police from UPMC. In its order, the suppression court made numerous findings of fact, examined the independent source doctrine, and concluded that the Commonwealth may not remedy an illegal search by the reenactment of an investigation by a different officer. Trial Court Opinion (T.C.O.), 11/14/01, at 5-6 (unnumbered). The Commonwealth timely appealed, and the matter originally came before a three-judge panel of this Court. On February 11, 2003, the panel filed a Memorandum affirming the suppression court’s ruling. See Commonwealth v. Ruey, 178 WDA 2002 (Pa.Super.2003) (unpublished memorandum). The Commonwealth filed an application for reargument en banc, which we granted.
¶ 9 Thus, the Commonwealth continues to seek reversal of the trial court’s suppression order, presenting the following questions for our review:
I. Whether, after a law enforcement officer had amassed abundant probable cause to obtain medical records (including blood alcohol content readings) and obtained a search warrant based upon an application that was technically invalid, the Commonwealth should forever be precluded from obtaining a second search warrant to obtain those medical records when no information from the results of the first search is used in the affidavit and probable cause to believe that a search will reveal evidence of criminal conduct continues to exist.
II. Whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in Commonwealth v. Melendez, 544 Pa. 323, 676 A.2d 226 (1996) regarding the “independent investigative team” requirement should be overruled.
En Banc Brief for Commonwealth at 4. The Commonwealth explicitly acknowledges that its second question is included “merely for the purpose of issue preservation. The Commonwealth is cognizant of the fact that the Superior Court does not have the authority to overrule a holding of the Supreme Court.” En Banc Brief for Commonwealth at 4. The Commonwealth *564being correct on this point, we limit our review to its first question.
¶ 10 Our scope and standard of review are well-settled.
When the Commonwealth appeals from a suppression order, we ... consider only the evidence from the defendant’s witnesses together with the evidence of the prosecution that, when read in the context of the entire record, remains uncontradicted. The suppression court’s findings of fact bind an appellate court if the record supports those findings. The suppression court’s conclusions of law, however, are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts.
Commonwealth v. Keller, 823 A.2d 1004, 1008 (Pa.Super.2003) (quoting Commonwealth v. Nester, 551 Pa. 157, 709 A.2d 879, 880-81 (1998)). Here, no meaningful dispute of fact emerges, thus we consider only whether the trial court misconstrued or misapplied the law.
¶ 11 The exclusionary rule, which renders evidence seized in violation of constitutional protections inadmissible at trial, serves in Pennsylvania a purpose somewhat different from the purpose the rule serves under federal jurisprudence. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently has noted that
[t]he Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule has been construed by the United States Supreme Court as serving solely a deterrent purpose [to police misconduct], whereas the exclusionary rule under Article I, Section 8 [of the Pennsylvania Constitution] has been interpreted by this Court to serve the purposes of safeguarding privacy and ensuring that warrants are issued only upon probable cause.
Commonwealth v. Zhahir, 561 Pa. 545, 751 A.2d 1153, 1159 n. 5 (2000) (citations omitted); see Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374, 586 A.2d 887 (1991). Of course, this undisputed proposition cannot blind us to the fact that knowledge of the likelihood of suppression of evidence improperly obtained under Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution will inevitably deter some police misconduct. See Commonwealth v. Mason, 535 Pa. 560, 637 A.2d 251, 257 n. 3 (1993) (“Deterring police misconduct is not an end in itself.1 The ultimate distinction, then, between the federal and the Pennsylvania analysis is not that the federal courts seek only to deter police misconduct and the Pennsylvania courts seek to protect certain rights, but that the federal courts place less importance than do we on the right of privacy.”).
¶ 12 That a secondary goal of deterrence lurks behind Pennsylvania’s historically dogged protection of individual privacy rights under her constitution is evidenced by exceptions to the exclusionary rule like the independent source doctrine, which permits the introduction at trial of evidence seized during an illegal search if the prosecution can demonstrate that the allegedly tainted evidence ultimately would have been procured through means independent of the illegality. See Mason, 637 A.2d at 254. Thus, our Supreme Court has held that where there is probable cause independent of police misconduct that is sufficient in itself to support the issuance of a warrant, the police should not be placed in a worse situation than they would have been absent the error or violation under which the evidence was seized. See Commonwealth v. Brundidge, 533 Pa. 167, 620 A.2d 1115, 1119-20 (1993); see also Commonwealth v. Rood, 686 A.2d 442, 448 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996).
¶ 13 In Brundidge, our Supreme Court applied the independent source doctrine to sustain the seizure of evidence from a motel room. In that case, a motel housekeep*565er observed suspicious plastic baggies and other items in an apparently vacant motel room. See 620 A.2d at 1117. The motel manager informed an on-site undercover narcotics officer who conducted a warrant-less search of the room and found 206 grams of cocaine in the pocket of a jacket that the prior occupants of the room had left behind. See id. The officer replaced the contraband in the jacket pocket and applied for a search warrant. See id. When the occupants returned to re-rent the room, the police executed the warrant, seized the drugs and other incriminating items, and arrested Brundidge. See id. Prior to trial, Brundidge filed a motion to suppress, which was denied. See id. On appeal of his consequent conviction, this Court reversed the trial court’s order. See id. at 1118.
¶ 14 On the Commonwealth’s appeal of that ruling, our Supreme Court agreed that the search was illegal, but reversed on the basis of the independent source doctrine. The Court relied on the two-prong test set forth by the United States Supreme Court governing the application of the independent source doctrine: “(1) whether the decision to seek a warrant was prompted by what was seen during the initial [warrantless] entry; and, (2) whether the magistrate was informed at all of the information” improperly obtained. Id. at 1119 (citing Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 542, 108 S.Ct. 2529, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988)). The Court also noted that, in Murray, the United States Supreme Court remanded “to determine whether government experts would have sought the warrant if they had not earlier entered the site.” Id. (emphasis added). In Brundidge, the Court found that sufficient information and evidence existed, apart from the cocaine discovered in the jacket pocket, to support issuance of a search warrant for the room. See id. at 1119-20. The Court emphasized that the warrant application did not rely on the cocaine improperly discovered. Instead, it relied on the housekeeper’s observations— which were corroborated by the officer’s observations of baggies and other suspicious items in plain view — finding that they alone created probable cause for the search.

Because no evidence concerning the cocaine in the clothing was presented to the magistrate, the cocaine would have been discovered by a source independent of the initial illegality.

We hold, therefore, that both prongs of the test set forth in Murray have been met and the evidence in the present case is admissible under the “independent source” doctrine. To hold otherwise would be contrary to the purpose of the exclusionary rule, for it would put the police in a worse position than they would have occupied if no violation had occurred.
Id. at 1120 (emphasis added).
¶ 15 In Mason, decided by our Supreme Court ten months after Brundidge, the Court refined the independent source exception to the exclusionary rule. See Mason, 637 A.2d at 254. In that case, the Court considered whether the independent source doctrine supported the admissibility of contraband seized where police, waiting for a warrant to arrive and absent exigent circumstances, conducted a warrantless search of a private dwelling by breaking down the door with a battering ram. See id. at 255. The Mason Court cited Brun-didge with approval, but questioned whether the independent source doctrine applied.
It is axiomatic, of course, that once a judicially created rule is promulgated, the common law system requires that appellate courts consider this rule in its *566various factual guises and expand or contract the rule as justice requires.
In the present case, there are significant factual differences from the Brun-didge case. First, in the present case, the place of invasion is a dwelling place, whereas in Brundidge it was a motel room for which registration had expired; second the mode of entry in the present case was a battering ram, but in the Brundidge case, the trooper simply walked through the open door; third, in the present case, there was no reasonable explanation for battering down the door before the warrant arrived, but in the Brundidge ease, the trooper entered the motel room after checkout time at the invitation of the manager. These differences are significant ....
Id. (footnote omitted). Thus, in part because the particular violation — a warrant-less entry of a dwelling by battering ram absent exigent circumstances — was an egregious constitutional affront, the Court found that the independent source doctrine did not make the otherwise excludible drugs admissible. See id. at 256-57.
¶ 16 Justice Cappy (now Chief Justice) affixed to Mason a prescient concurrence in which he suggested that
application of the “independent source doctrine” is proper only in the very limited circumstances where the “independent source” is truly independent from both the tainted evidence and the police or investigative team which engaged in the misconduct by which the tainted evidence was discovered. In my view, the “independent source doctrine” can be safely applied under these limited circumstances because I do not believe that the police would risk an illegal entry based upon the remote possibility that a truly independent source will somehow materialize to remove the taint of their illegal entry.
Id. at 257-58 (Cappy, J., concurring) (emphasis in original). Several years later, the Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Melendez, 544 Pa. 323, 676 A.2d 226, 231 (1996), “adopt[ed] the limitation of the independent source doctrine which Mr. Justice Cappy proposed in Mason ....” In Melendez, the police entered and detained defendant and codefendant in an apartment while they awaited issuance of a warrant for which their colleague contemporaneously applied. See 676 A.2d at 227. The Court found that there was neither any source for the evidence seized as the result of a warrantless search and seizure of the person and premises of Patricia Melendez that was “truly independent” of “either the tainted evidence or the police who engaged in the misconduct,” nor exigent circumstances sufficient to cure the misconduct. See id. at 231. The Court thus ruled that the evidence, including cocaine, weapons, and cash, required suppression.
¶ 17 In the case before us, the dispositive flaw in Trooper Bryan’s affidavit in support of the first warrant application was technical in nature; Bryan failed to include in his warrant application an averment of his belief in the credibility of the paramedics who told him that Ruey appeared drunk. The Commonwealth conceded that this flaw invalidated the original warrant, acknowledging that “technical flaws” were fatal to the application prepared by Bryan. En Banc Brief for Commonwealth at 23; Order of Court, 11/29/00. When the District Attorney’s office asked Trooper Allen to conduct a follow-up investigation, he prepared a new application and affidavit that contained no technical deficiencies and the magistrate issued a new search warrant for Ruejos medical records. The new application and affidavit made no reference to the tainted evidence secured under the aegis of the first, flawed war*567rant — ie., any reference to the actual BAC test result that had been seized under the first warrant or any other information gleaned from Ruey’s medical file. Rather, it simply contained a new account of the evidence that originally led officers to suspect Ruey of DUI.
¶ 18 The suppression court, however, found controlling our Supreme Court’s holding in Melendez. It concluded that “[although the actions of [Trooper Bryan] in the case sub judice are not as egregious as the acts of the officers in Mason and Melendez the result is the same, an illegal search.” T.C.O., 11/14/01, at 5 (unnumbered). The court then continued:
Applying the rule articulated in Melendez to the current facts therefore this Court must decide whether the second investigation by Trooper Allen constitutes an independent source for the acquisition of the medical records. In applying this rule it is clear that the actions of Trooper Allen in concurring [sic] with the original officer and essentially re-enacting his investigation is not an independent alternative source from which the evidence could have been obtained.
T.C.O., 11/14/01, at 5 (unnumbered) (citation omitted). The suppression court thus opined that “[t]he mere substitution of an officer for what is essentially a ‘walk through’ of the same investigation,” T.C.O., 11/14/01, at 5 (unnumbered), could not be deemed “truly independent from both the tainted evidence and the police or investigative team which engaged in the misconduct by which the tainted evidence was discovered.” Melendez, 676 A.2d at 231 (original emphasis removed). We disagree.
¶ 19 There is no dispute that Trooper Allen’s investigation followed in the footsteps of Trooper Bryan’s investigation. The dispositive question under Brundidge, Mason, and Melendez, however, is whether and to what extent Trooper Allen, or the police at large, profited in their investigation from the initial violation, and whether the second warrant was secured by reference to the fruits of the officer’s prior error — in sum, whether a warrant would have issued even absent the knowledge or evidence gleaned by that error. Melendez does not require construction of an impermeable barrier between police officers and their departments to preserve the applicability of the independent source doctrine, only between evidence secured due to official misconduct of whatever kind and the magistrate’s chamber.
¶ 20 Melendez certainly circumscribed application of the independent source doctrine, and in doing so created some tension between its strict ruling and the more flexible ruling found in Brundidge. See Melendez, 676 A.2d at 231. It is incumbent on this Court, however, to reconcile these rulings, because nothing in Melendez suggests that the Supreme Court intended to overrule Brundidge. Indeed, the Melendez opinion never mentions Brundidge. Thus, we must analyze and decide this case in a fashion salutary to Brundidge, Mason, and Melendez, each of which is an important link in the chain of Pennsylvania’s independent source doctrine, each of which remains ‘good law.’
¶ 21 Our Supreme Court has provided a basis on which to do so in its clear reliance in Melendez on the “important difference” between those cases that involve “the invasion of a dwelling place” and those that do not. See Melendez, 676 A.2d at 231 (“[T]he facts in Mason were importantly different from the facts in previous independent source cases in that they involved the invasion of a dwelling place.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, Justice Cappy, in connection with the passage of his concurrence in Mason that the Court elevated in *568Melendez, suggested that police would not “risk an illegal entry based upon the remote possibility that a truly independent source will somehow materialize to remove the taint of their illegal entry.” Mason, 637 A.2d at 257-58 (Cappy, J., concurring) (emphasis added).
¶ 22 In the instant case, there has been neither an “invasion of a dwelling place” nor an “illegal entry” of any sort. Thus, even if Melendez applies, it does not preclude our ruling against suppression in the instant case. Moreover, the record suggests no illegal intrusion into Ruey’s private medical records in reliance on the conjecture or assumption that a search warrant would issue at a later time. Rather, Officer Bryan clearly believed he was acting under the authority of a proper warrant, which he had in hand before seeking Ruey’s medical records. Although it is beyond peradventure that Ruey had a legitimate interest in the privacy of his records, the conduct in question entailed no forcible entry, no violent intrusion into a private residence, nor any equivalent misconduct. In Mason, the Court distinguished an entry into a temporarily vacant motel room from that into a private residence, finding the former less offensive and disposing of the case partially on that basis. See 637 A.2d at 254-55. Here, the violation in question — a failure to include certain formal assertions regarding credibility on the warrant application — is even less substantial than the intrusion into the motel room relied upon in Brundidge and distinguished in Mason. The essence of this point was visited and reaffirmed in our Supreme Court’s seminal Edmunds decision, where it noted that “nothing in the history of the Rules themselves, or related case law, mandate[s] that every violation of the Rules of Criminal Procedure — however technical — require[s] exclusion of evidence seized in the process. Rather, .. it is only where the violation implicates fundamental, constitutional concerns that exclusion may be appropriate.” 586 A.2d at 903 n. 14 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
¶23 Moreover, this Court recently has recognized precisely this distinction. In Commonwealth v. Smith, 808 A.2d 215 (Pa.Super.2002), appellant, while driving under the influence of alcohol, crossed into the opposing lane of travel, struck an oncoming vehicle, and killed the other driver. See id. at 219. Appellant was transported to a hospital where a BAC test was administered for treatment purposes. See id. A State Trooper conducted an investigation which consisted entirely of interviewing appellant. See id. at 223 n. 5. Solely on the basis of that interview, a search warrant issued and appellant’s BAC test results were seized. See id. The suppression court granted appellant’s pre-trial motion to suppress because it found the search warrant invalid. See id. at 219. Subsequently, another detective conducted his own investigation. See id. at 220-21. The persons interviewed by that detective related that appellant had the odor of alcohol on and about her person and vehicle. See id. The detective applied for and received a new warrant and the BAC test results again were obtained. See id. at 221. The second investigator began his investigation by reviewing the first investigator’s records, using those records much in the way Trooper Allen relied on Trooper Bryan’s records in this case — as a guide to his own, independent investigation. Appellant sought suppression of the fruits of this second investigation. The suppression court concluded that the Commonwealth had obtained probable cause for the issuance of the second warrant through an independent source and thus denied suppression. See id.
¶ 24 On appeal of her judgment of sentence, appellant alleged that because the *569subsequent detective relied, in part, on the initial State Trooper’s report, the subsequent investigation was not “truly independent” under Melendez and that suppression therefore was compelled. See id. at 223. We disagreed. In finding the case “completely distinguishable” from Melendez and Mason, we noted that: “We do not have a situation where the police, in anticipation that a warrant will issue, violate a citizen’s constitutional rights and then invoke the independent source doctrine.” Id. Thus, even though the second investigator began by reviewing the first investigator’s findings, see id. at 221, we nonetheless found the second investigation, in effect, to be “totally separate” from the first and therefore untainted by its illegality. See id. at 223. Here as well, the evidence obtained by the second investigator was not peculiarly available in virtue of the taint of the first investigation; rather, it was the product of precisely the sources any investigator would explore under the circumstances of the case. Cf. Brundidge, 620 A.2d at 1119 (identifying as germane to the determination whether to apply the independent source doctrine the inquiry “whether government experts would have sought the warrant if they had not earlier entered the site[?]”). That the evidence thus procured did not differ appreciably from that discovered during the first investigation does not materially alter our analysis.
¶ 25 Our sister Commonwealth Court has drawn a similar distinction, noting that the impetus behind limiting the scope of the independent source doctrine is, at least in part, to prevent the police from benefiting from unconstitutional conduct. See Rood, 686 A.2d at 448. In that case, the Commonwealth Court explained that
[s]uppressing evidence which is supported by an independent source, or which would have inevitably been discovered, would effectively place the police and prosecutors in a worse position when the particular evidence was, or would have inevitably been, lawfully obtained. In such situations, there is no significant causal connection between the acquisition of the evidence and the unlawful police conduct, and evidence so obtained is not considered to be tainted by, or to be the fruit of, an illegal search.
Id. (italics added; boldface in original); see Brundidge, 620 A.2d at 1119-20. Thus, the Commonwealth Court noted a contingent aspect to the relevant inquiry: would the evidence have been discovered if not for the misconduct? See also Commonwealth v. Lehman, 820 A.2d 766 (Pa.Super.), allow, of appeal granted, 575 Pa. 684, 834 A.2d 1141 (2003) (upholding the suppression court’s denial of suppression because “[e]ven if the officer lacked the authority to awaken and detain the defendant, had he merely made observations and called the Pennsylvania State Police dispatcher, the Pennsylvania State Police Trooper would have obtained the same evidence ” (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added)).
¶ 26 In view of this doctrinal history, we must endeavor to respect the competing interests reflected by our Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Mason, Brundidge, and Melendez. First, we must recall the strong and oft-stated policy interest in ensuring that the police are not placed in a less advantageous position by the exclusionary rule than they would have been absent the misconduct that rule offsets in a given case. See Brundidge, 620 A.2d at 1119-20; Rood, 686 A.2d at 448. Were we to affirm the trial court’s restrictive reading of Melendez in this case, the likelihood of a second, valid warrant issuing would have an inversely proportional relationship to the thoroughness of the first investigation. Thus, where, as in the case before *570us, the first investigator effectively exhausted all avenues through which probable cause might be ascertained, subsequent investigators would effectively be barred from securing a warrant thereafter, no matter how immaterial the error committed during the first investigation. This state of affairs inevitably would lead to the police finding themselves in a position far worse than they would have been absent the investigator’s error; moreover, it effectively would overrule the flexible approach we reaffirmed just last year in Smith. This interpretation of Melendez would subsume a rule of longer standing and clearer articulation, and fly in the face of probable cause caselaw in which Pennsylvania courts consistently have made commonsense determinations based on the totality of the circumstances. We will not read Melendez to subsume or overrule sub silentio a valid body of established law.
¶ 27 Fortunately, the circumstances of the cases under consideration provide a principled basis on which to harmonize the strong language of Melendez with the cautionary tone struck in cases like Brundidge. Historically, the type of violation committed by police has played a critical role in the evolution of the independent source doctrine. The Supreme Court in Mason and Melendez severely curtailed the doctrine’s application where the underlying constitutional violation was egregious — i.e., a warrantless, forcible entry into a dwelling in the absence of exigent circumstances. Cf. Mason, 637 A.2d at 257-58 (Cappy, J., concurring) (focusing on prevention of illegal entries by police). Just as clearly, however, the doctrine did not require suppression in Brundidge and Smith, where the violations in question were more benign. Here, the error was even more remote from the policy interests protected by the Melendez limitation. Trooper Allen conducted a second investigation in which he reviewed the circumstances of the accident and personally re-interviewed several witnesses. Trooper Allen, based on his own experience and judgment and the information provided him by individuals who were present at the accident scene, concluded that probable cause to suspect a DUI violation existed sufficient to merit preparation of a search warrant application.
¶ 28 Where the principal taint on the original investigation is a technical error in the drafting of an affidavit of probable cause, another officer must remain free to review and assess the facts independently and seek a new warrant, notwithstanding some connection to the original investigating officer. See Smith, 808 A.2d at 223 (upholding denial of suppression motion even where the second investigator relied on the first investigator’s report and criminal complaint). We do not intend to diminish unduly the import of technical requirements in the securing of a valid warrant; indeed, we maintain that the first investigation itself was irreparably tainted by Trooper Bryan’s omission.
¶ 29 This case, however, presents circumstances under which we can only conclude that the evidence in question would have come to light notwithstanding the taint on the initial investigation. Multiple witnesses indicated that Ruey appeared drunk. Moreover, officers at the scene discovered a number of empty and partially-empty bottles of alcoholic beverages in and around Ruey’s vehicle. The responding paramedics also indicated that Ruey’s conduct strongly suggested drunkenness. Trooper Allen’s investigation was in no way tainted by the fruits of Trooper Bryan’s prior investigation. See Brundidge, 620 A.2d at 1119 (citing Murray, 487 U.S. at 542, 108 S.Ct. 2529); Lehman, 820 A.2d at 771-72; Smith, 808 A.2d at 223; Rood, 686 A.2d at 448. No causal *571nexus existed between the results of the first search and the successful application for the second warrant. Cf. Rood, 686 A.2d at 448. Cause to search Ruey’s medical records therefore would have been found had Bryan’s warrant application not been tainted by omission, which is sufficient to warrant application of the independent source doctrine. See Lehman, 820 A.2d at 771; Rood, 686 A.2d at 448.
¶ 30 Given the comprehensiveness of Bryan’s initial investigation, Allen’s investigation inevitably retraced ground covered by the first investigation, which culminated in a flawed search warrant application. Cf. Smith, 808 A.2d at 223. The independent source doctrine should ensure that law enforcement officers not find themselves in a worse situation than they would have been absent the violation. See Brundidge, 620 A.2d at 1119-20. It should not encourage officers to erect barriers to communication between and among themselves, nor should it create an incentive for first responders to perform less than comprehensive investigations in order to leave open alternative avenues for subsequent investigators to argue that they reached probable cause by an independent source, should a first warrant fail for reasons such as these. Thus, we find that neither Mason nor Melendez creates a per se rule requiring for probable cause that the original investigator be hermetically sealed off from his colleagues especially where, as here, the error tainting the first investigation had nothing to do with the knowing circumvention of constitutional requirements — i.e., any substantial misconduct — and where, as here, none of the evidence secured improperly by the first investigation added anything of substance to the second investigation or the second warrant application.
¶ 31 Justice Cappy raised an important concern when he averred that “ ‘the independent source doctrine,’ as an exception to the exclusionary rule, should not be allowed to swallow the rule itself.” See Mason, 637 A.2d at 258 (Cappy, J., concurring). To affirm the suppression order in this ease, however, would allow the exclusionary rule to swallow a time-honored exception, which we find to be an equally untenable outcome. Cf. Melendez, 676 A2d at 233 (Castille, J., dissenting).
¶ 32 Thus we conclude that the second investigation, conducted by a different officer at a later time by reviewing sources that officer would be compelled by the least modicum of common sense to review even had no prior report or interviews been recorded, was sufficiently removed from the prior officer’s omission to be considered “truly independent.” Accordingly, we reverse the suppression order.
¶ 33 Order REVERSED. Case REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
¶ 34 President Judge DEL SOLE and Judges HUDOCK, TODD and KLEIN join this Majority Opinion.
¶ 35 Judge JOYCE joins the Dissenting Opinion by STEVENS, J. and files a separate Dissenting Opinion which is joined by Judges FORD ELLIOTT and MUSMAN-NO.
¶ 36 Judge STEVENS files a Dissenting Opinion which is joined by Judges FORD ELLIOTT, JOYCE and MUSMANNO.

. I note that the burden of proving that the independent source doctrine applies rests with the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Ingram, 814 A.2d 264 (Pa.Super.2002).