���Ӷ���Ƶ

To establish that evidence originally acquired unlawfully has been independently attained, the State must show that, “no information gained from the Fourth Amendment violations “affected either [1] the law enforcement officers’ decision to seek a warrant or [2] the magistrate’s decision to grant it.” Murray, 487 U.S. at 539–40.

Saelee appealed convictions of attempted possession and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute. Saelee assigned error to the district court for denying his motion to suppress. On appeal, Saelee argued that the evidence obtained from multiple Fourth Amendment violations should be suppressed. In response, the State argued that the independent source doctrine, an exception to the exclusionary rule, precludes the suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence, if the evidence later would have been obtained independently from the initial illegal activities. "To establish that evidence originally acquired unlawfully has been independently attained, the State must show that, “no information gained from the Fourth Amendment violations affected either [1] the law enforcement officers’ decision to seek a warrant or [2] the magistrate’s decision to grant it.” Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 539–40 (1988)." The Court reasoned the suppression of evidence was not warranted because the tangible and intangible evidence obtained from the Fourth Amenement violations was independently rediscovered or resiezed. Even though the agent did not completely prepare the warrant application (except for one paragraph), the warrant was sought and issued independently from the violations. Further, the only additional facts added to the application were that Saelee was arrested, which didn't’t influence the magistrate’s decision. Affirmed.