Court Opinion

ID: 9472560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:04:01.108995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:00.749401
License: Public Domain

OPINION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Following our opinion herein, reported 730 F.2d 28 (2-1), defendant moved for rehearing. We reserved action on the motion pending the Supreme Court’s opinion on the somewhat similar case of Segura v. United States, then under advisement. Segura has now come down, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984).
Segura makes clear that the panel decision was correct. An unauthorized1 seizure of premises, which includes the contents, known and unknown, does not require the exclusion from evidence of items subsequently discovered if their discovery is traceable to a lawful independent source, not contributed to by, or the fruit of, any improper conduct. The fact that the same officers were involved does not mean it was not independent; independent source means independent of unlawful conduct, not independent individuals.
The Segura court did not consider the consequences if the seizure itself, by preventing loss or destruction of the property by freezing it in situ, might contribute to the discovery, except to require more than speculation that this was the fact. That question is not presented in the case at bar.
The Petition for rehearing is denied.
On the same day, the petition for rehearing en banc is denied, on the basis of the Per Curiam opinion denying rehearing by the panel.

. The Chief Justice, who authored the "opinion for the Court,” was joined by Justice O’Connor, only, in regarding the Segura seizure as lawful because probable cause for a warrant existed, and a warrant was being sought, although there were no exigent circumstances presaging loss or destruction of the property. This difference of view is of no present consequences.