Court Opinion

ID: 9742118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:07:02.160648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:28.629357
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE FREEMAN, specially concurring: Defendant in this case has framed the issue on appeal as one requiring an analysis which is ordinarily reserved for those cases challenging the admissibility of evidence as being the "fruit of the poisonous tree.” The majority has inclined its ear and, correspondingly, engages in an analysis to determine whether, regardless of Rev. Golisch’s violation of the clergy testimonial privilege, the challenged evidence would have been inevitably discovered and, therefore, properly admissible. 178 Ill. 2d at 435-36. I agree with the majority’s ultimate conclusion that the trial court provided defendant with the appropriate remedy for an alleged breach of the clergy privilege. 178 Ill. 2d at 439. I disagree, however, with the majority’s decision to assume, for purposes of disposing of this appeal, application of the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” and its correlative inevitable discovery exception. By so doing, the majority engages in an extensive and unnecessary analysis which is not only incorrect, but lends support to the notion that a fourth amendment analysis may be available in an evidentiary privilege case. I therefore write separately to address this point. The "fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine was born out of fourth amendment concerns over improper police conduct in the gathering of evidence. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 442, 81 L. Ed. 2d 377, 386, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 2508 (1984). Generally, evidence obtained through the exploitation of illegal police conduct must be excluded from evidence at trial. See Note, The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Constitutional Exclusionary Rules, 74 Colum. L. Rev. 88 (1974). This exclusionary rule deprives the prosecution of evidence tainted by official wrongdoing and thereby discourages future improprieties. See United States v. Jones, 72 F.3d 1324, 1330 (7th Cir. 1995). An exception to the exclusionary rule is the "inevitable discovery doctrine.” People v. Edwards, 144 Ill. 2d 108, 143 (1991); Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 81 L. Ed. 2d 377, 104 S. Ct. 2501 (1984). The exception serves to block the setting aside of convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct. Nix, 467 U.S. at 443 n.4, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 387 n.4,104 S. Ct. at 2509 n.4. If the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means, then the evidence should be received. Nix, 467 U.S. at 444, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 387-88, 104 S. Ct. at 2509. The majority, without supporting authority, extends the reach of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to now cover more than police misconduct cases, but also violations of the clergy privilege by clergymen. Application of the doctrine in these cases is simply inappropriate. See People v. Ward, 199 A.D.2d 573, 604 N.Y.S.2d 320 (1993) (fruit of poisonous tree doctrine not applied to suppress evidence flowing from privileged communication between clergy and penitent); see also Walstad v. State, 818 P.2d 695, 699 n.6 (Alaska App. 1991) (noting that there seems to be considerable doubt as to the extent to which the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine should apply in cases involving violations of evidentiary privileges). The availability of the doctrine in an evidentiary privilege case, such as this one, could have undesirable consequences. Specifically, in the event that the inevitable discovery exception does not operate to purge the taint of evidence obtained as a result of a violation of the clergyman’s privilege, the availability of the exclusionary rule will operate to exclude probative evidence from admission at trial. Moreover, application of the rule in other than illegal police conduct cases is wholly inconsistent with the purpose of the exception— deterring police misconduct. Even assuming that application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is proper in evidentiary privilege cases, I disagree that the inevitable discovery exception would operate to "purge the taint” of the challenged evidence here. The majority believes otherwise, finding that because R.R.’s parents had not ruled out the possibility of pursuing criminal charges, evidence concerning the criminal sexual abuse would have been inevitably discovered regardless of Rev. Golisch’s report to DCFS. See 178 Ill. 2d at 437-38. This analysis is plagued with infirmities. First, because the State has not engaged in any illegal conduct in acquiring Rev. Golisch’s statements, it bears no burden of proof on the issue of inevitable discovery. That, of course, leaves the court to inappropriately make this factual determination. See Jones, 72 F.3d at 1334 (stating that typically a preponderance of the evidence burden of proof for purposes of inevitable discovery requires testimony rather than mere argument). Second, courts will generally find that evidence would have been inevitably discovered where such evidence would have been, inter alla, discovered through an independent line of investigation untainted by the illegal conduct and the independent investigation was already in progress at the time the evidence was unconstitutionally obtained. People v. Durgan, 281 Ill. App. 3d 863, 867 (1996), citing People v. Perez, 258 Ill. App. 3d 133, 138 (1994); see also Nix, 467 U.S. at 459, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 397, 104 S. Ct. at 2517 (Brennan, J., dissenting, joined by Marshall, J.). In this case, there was no independent police investigation in progress. The investigation did not begin until after Rev. Golisch made his report to DCFS. Third, the finding of inevitable discovery requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence would have been discovered despite the illegal conduct. It is important that courts be extremely careful not to apply the " 'inevitable discovery’ rule upon the basis of nothing more than a hunch or speculation as to what otherwise might have occurred.” See 1 W. LaFave, Criminal Procedure § 9.3, at 741 (1984). Speculation and assumption do not satisfy the dictates of Nix. See Jones, 72 F.3d 1324 (holding that for inevitable discovery exception to apply, government must establish by preponderance of evidence not only that there would have been probable cause for a lawful search, but that the search in fact would have occurred). As the majority itself notes, R.R.’s parents had originally intended for this matter to be "handled in the church.” 178 Ill. 2d at 438. Although the parents had thoughts of filing a complaint with the police, there is no evidence that the parents would have, in fact, contacted the police. Further, it is insufficient for purposes of inevitable discovery that the police might or could have obtained R.R.’s parents’ statement. Clearly, to conclude that R.R.’s parents would have made a police report is speculative. Thus, the majority’s reliance on the above facts to support inevitable discovery falls far short of the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof mandated by the Court in Nix. There is one final factor which points up the inappropriateness of the use of the inevitable discovery exception in this case. As I have stated, the inevitable discovery exception flows out of fourth amendment concerns for overreaching by police. In the typical case, the focus of the inquiry is on the future intended investigatory conduct of the violator — the police. For its finding of inevitable discovery, the majority here focuses its inquiry, not on the future intended conduct of the person having allegedly violated the privilege, Rev. Golisch, but instead, on the witnesses to the offense. Consistent with the inevitable discovery analysis, the focus of the inquiry here should necessarily be on the intended future conduct of Rev. Golisch in his investigation of the offense. Because Rev. Golisch was, of course, not engaged in an investigation, consideration of his future conduct would leave the inevitable discovery inquiry yet unanswered. The exclusionary rule, out of which was created the inevitable discovery exception, is the constitutional response to illegally seized evidence. The rule serves the legitimate purpose of deterring police misconduct, while its exceptions operate to defeat the rule’s absolute bar to the admissibility of illegally seized evidence. The clergy testimonial privilege, which is statutorily created, also protects legitimate competing interests. However, privileges should be allowed only to the extent necessary to achieve their desired purposes. See J. Hilliard, The Public’s Right to Evidence — Sometimes: The Clergy Testimonial Privilege, 83 Ill. B.J. 182, 182-83 (1995). To apply fourth amendment principles to a statutorily created privilege inappropriately elevates the privilege to constitutional dimensions. See Walstad, 818 P.2d at 699 n.6 (stating that if government was party to improper breach and a constitutional privilege was involved the legal fruits doctrine will apply). Incidentally, it is generally accepted that the clergy privilege is not required by the first amendment. See 83 Ill. B.J. at 183. The clergy privilege, not being of constitutional dimension, merits for its violation no constitutional remedy. In my view, the appellate court’s analysis of the issue presented in this appeal is the proper one. Rather than suggest that fourth amendment principles are even appropriate in cases involving evidentiary privileges, I would simply have affirmed the appellate court. JUSTICE BILANDIC joins in this special concurrence.