attenuation doctrine in Maryland

2019See Miles v. State, 365 Md. 488, 525 , 781 A.2d 787, 808 (“[T]he voluntariness of [the individual’s] actions in providing evidence or testimony should be considered as an intervening factor under the attenuation doctrine.”); see also Streiff, 136 S. Ct. at 2062 , 195 L.Ed.2d 400 (concluding that the discovery of a valid warrant that “was entirely unconnected with the [unlawful] stop” constituted an intervening circumstance that weighed against suppression).

2019In Strieff, the United States Supreme Court applied the attenuation doctrine when it evaluated whether a pre-existing arrest warrant sufficiently attenuated “the causal link between the government’s unlawful act and the discovery of evidence[.]” 136 S. Ct. at 2061 .

2025Miles, 365 Md. at 520 .21 21 The Miles Court also held that the attenuation doctrine applies to the Act’s exclusionary provision.

2025See Miles v. State, 365 Md. 488, 516-29 (2001) (discussing the attenuation doctrine).3 Here, the parties disagree about whether the independent source doctrine or the inevitable discovery doctrine applies.

2019In Brown v. Illinois, the United States Supreme Court articulated three factors that courts should weigh when determining whether the attenuation doctrine applies. 422 U.S. 590, 603-04 , 95 S. Ct. 2254, 2261-62 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975).

2019Citing Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975), Appellant claims that his alleged seizure was too temporally proximate to the discovery of the warrant, there was no intervening circumstance between those two events, and the alleged misconduct committed by 6 Corporal Russell was too flagrant to allow for the attenuation doctrine to apply.

2021The attenuation doctrine permits a court to ask, “whether there exists a strong enough causal connection between the primary taint [of a Fourth Amendment violation] and the challenged evidence to require the exclusion of that information.” Myers v. State, 395 Md. 261, 286 (2006).

2018See Cox v. State , 397 Md. 200 , 209-10, 916 A.2d 311 (2007) (declining to address issue of whether police conduct was reasonable and instead holding that, under the attenuation doctrine, the evidence should not be suppressed even if officers lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion); Myers v. State , 395 Md. 261 , 277-78, 909 A.2d 1048 (2006) (same).

2025“Its focus is on what would have happened if the illegal search had not aborted the lawful method of discovery.” Id. (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 3 Under the attenuation doctrine, “‘[e]vidence is admissible when the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so that’” the alleged taint caused by the unconstitutional conduct is purged, and “‘the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the eviden

2019“The attenuation doctrine evaluates the causal link between the 16 Some notable exceptions to the exclusionary rule include: 1) independent source doctrine (Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 , 108 S. Ct. 2529 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988)), 2) inevitable discovery doctrine (Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S. Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984)); (continued . . .) - 25 - government’s unlawful act and the discovery of evidence[.]” Id.

2018See Cox v. State , 397 Md. 200 , 209-10, 916 A.2d 311 (2007) (declining to address issue of whether police conduct was reasonable and instead holding that, under the attenuation doctrine, the evidence should not be suppressed even if officers lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion); Myers v. State , 395 Md. 261 , 277-78, 909 A.2d 1048 (2006) (same).

2018See Cox v. State , 397 Md. 200 , 209-10, 916 A.2d 311 (2007) (declining to address issue of whether police conduct was reasonable and instead holding that, under the attenuation doctrine, the evidence should not be suppressed even if officers lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion); Myers v. State , 395 Md. 261 , 277-78, 909 A.2d 1048 (2006) (same).

2001We adopted the test for attenuation, as set forth in Brown , in Ferguson v. State, 301 Md. at 549 , 483 A.2d at 1258 (considering the application of the attenuation doctrine to extrajudicial and in-court identification testimony given by the victim of a robbery, where the accused was arrested without probable cause).

2001We adopted the test for attenuation, as set forth in Brown , in Ferguson v. State, 301 Md. at 549 , 483 A.2d at 1258 (considering the application of the attenuation doctrine to extrajudicial and in-court identification testimony given by the victim of a robbery, where the accused was arrested without probable cause).

2019See Miles v. State, 365 Md. 488, 525 , 781 A.2d 787, 808 (“[T]he voluntariness of [the individual’s] actions in providing evidence or testimony should be considered as an intervening factor under the attenuation doctrine.”); see also Streiff, 136 S. Ct. at 2062 , 195 L.Ed.2d 400 (concluding that the discovery of a valid warrant that “was entirely unconnected with the [unlawful] stop” constituted an intervening circumstance that weighed against suppression).

2017A concurring member of the three-judge panel, Judge Kathryn Graeff, concluded that, assuming arguendo that the stop was illegal, the evidence that was recovered from Mr. Sizer would have been admissible under the attenuation doctrine, rather than the independent source doctrine, in light of this Court’s decisions in Myers v. State, 395 Md. 261 , 909 A.2d 1048 (2006), Cox v. State, 397 Md. 200 , 916 A.2d 311 (2007), and the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Utah v. Strieff, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2056 , 195 L.Ed.2d 400 (2016).

2018The Eleventh Circuit explained, however, that " 'the question of causation' " under the attenuation doctrine " 'cannot be decided on the basis of causation in the logical sense alone, but necessarily includes other elements ... (relating to) the fundamental *134 tenets of the exclusionary rule.' " United States v. Bailey , 691 F.2d at 1017 (quoting United States v. Ceccolini , 435 U.S. 268 , 274, 98 S.Ct. 1054 , 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978) ).

2018The Eleventh Circuit explained, however, that " 'the question of causation' " under the attenuation doctrine " 'cannot be decided on the basis of causation in the logical sense alone, but necessarily includes other elements ... (relating to) the fundamental *134 tenets of the exclusionary rule.' " United States v. Bailey , 691 F.2d at 1017 (quoting United States v. Ceccolini , 435 U.S. 268 , 274, 98 S.Ct. 1054 , 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978) ).

2019When a court is tasked with considering application of the attenuation doctrine, the reviewing court must analyze “whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 , 83 S. Ct. 407, 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) (citation omitted).

2019When a court is tasked with considering application of the attenuation doctrine, the reviewing court must analyze “whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 , 83 S. Ct. 407, 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) (citation omitted).

2016Third, . . . is the attenuation doctrine: Evidence is admissible when the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so that “the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained.” Hudson[ v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 593 (2006)].

2016Third, ... is the attenuation doctrine: Evidence is admissible when the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so that “the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained.” Hudson[ v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 593 , 126 S.Ct. 2159 , 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006)].

2019Did the Court of Special Appeals misapply the third factor of the attenuation doctrine (i.e., the purpose and flagrancy of the police misconduct)? - 12 - evaluation as to whether the officer’s encounter with the defendant was lawful.” Sizer, 456 Md. at 362 , 174 A.3d at 333 (citation omitted).

2019Did the Court of Special Appeals misapply the third factor of the attenuation doctrine (i.e., the purpose and flagrancy of the police misconduct)? - 12 - evaluation as to whether the officer’s encounter with the defendant was lawful.” Sizer, 456 Md. at 362 , 174 A.3d at 333 (citation omitted).

2025“Its focus is on what would have happened if the illegal search had not aborted the lawful method of discovery.” Id. (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 3 Under the attenuation doctrine, “‘[e]vidence is admissible when the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so that’” the alleged taint caused by the unconstitutional conduct is purged, and “‘the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the eviden

2019In Holt v. State, this Court was asked to decide whether, in applying the attenuation doctrine, a defendant’s commission of a new crime may constitute an intervening circumstance that, alone, purges the taint of a Fourth Amendment violation. 435 Md. 443, 457 , 78 A.3d 415, 422-23 (2013).

2019In Holt v. State, this Court was asked to decide whether, in applying the attenuation doctrine, a defendant’s commission of a new crime may constitute an intervening circumstance that, alone, purges the taint of a Fourth Amendment violation. 435 Md. 443, 457 , 78 A.3d 415, 422-23 (2013).

2007See Myers, 395 Md. at 285 , 909 A.2d 1048 ; U.S. v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-22 (7th Cir.1997) (applying the three-part attenuation analysis); State v. Frierson, 926 So.2d 1139, 1145 (Fla.2006) (relying substantially on the third factor of the analysis).

2007See Myers, 395 Md. at 285 , 909 A.2d 1048 ; U.S. v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-22 (7th Cir.1997) (applying the three-part attenuation analysis); State v. Frierson, 926 So.2d 1139, 1145 (Fla.2006) (relying substantially on the third factor of the analysis).

2002Ceccolini, which involved the voluntary aspect of a witness's testimony as a break in the chain of taint flowing from the unlawful conduct stands for the proposition that a person’s action in providing evidence or testimony should be considered as an intervening factor under the attenuation doctrine because a person has the "attributes of will, perception, memory and volition." Ceccolini, 435 U.S. at 277 , 98 S.Ct. at 1060 , 55 L.Ed.2d at 277 (quoting Smith v. United States, 324 F.2d 879, 881 (D.C.Cir.1963)).