source exception in Maine

2025But it is not without exceptions.7 Applicable here is the independent source exception which, in keeping with the Fourth Amendment’s touchstone principle of reasonableness, see Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 250 , “allows the admission of evidence which was gained through an independent source as well as the tainted source.” United States v. Silvestri, 787 F.2d 736, 740 (1st Cir. 1986).

2007The Independent Source Exception [¶ 16] The independent source exception to the exclusionary rule permits the use of evidence that has been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 5 of the Maine Constitution when that evidence "was gained through an independent source as well as the tainted source." State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me.1990) (quoting United States v. Silvestri, 787 F.2d 736, 740 (1st Cir.1986)).

2025As described by the United States Supreme Court in Murray v. United States: The inevitable discovery doctrine, with its distinct requirements, is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered. 487 U.S. 533, 539 (1988).

1990Consequently, the independent source exception to the exclusionary rule “allows admission of evidence which was gained through an independent source as well as the tainted source.” United States v. Silvestri, 787 F.2d 736, 740 (1st Cir.1986), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1233 , 108 S.Ct. 2897 , 101 L.Ed.2d 931 (1988); see also Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 537 , 108 S.Ct. 2529, 2533 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988); United States v. Moscatiello, 771 F.2d 589, 602-04 (1st Cir.1985), vacated on other grounds, 476 U.S. 1138 , 106 S.Ct. 2241 , 90 L.Ed.2d 688 (1986).

2025As we have previously stated, “[t]he inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule derives from the independent source doctrine, ‘but it differs in that the question is not whether the police did in fact acquire certain evidence by reliance upon an untainted source but instead whether evidence found because of a Fourth Amendment violation would inevitably have been discovered lawfully.’” State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016 , 1019–20 (Me. 1990) (quoting 4 Wayne R.

2007The Independent Source Exception [¶ 16] The independent source exception to the exclusionary rule permits the use of evidence that has been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 5 of the Maine Constitution when that evidence "was gained through an independent source as well as the tainted source." State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me.1990) (quoting United States v. Silvestri, 787 F.2d 736, 740 (1st Cir.1986)).

2025If the [judge] would still have had probable cause to issue the warrant without the allegedly unlawfully obtained information, the independent source exception allows the admission of the evidence, and suppression is not justified.” Id. (citation omitted). [¶26] Assuming—without deciding8—that the detective’s use of the emergency call function was a search under the Fourth Amendment and that a warrant was required, the limited evidence gathered during that search is still admissible because it was properly obtained during the subsequent search of the phone pursuant to a legally obtained warran

2025See Rabon, 2007 ME 113, ¶ 16 , 930 A.2d 268 (“If the magistrate would still have had probable cause to issue the warrant without the allegedly unlawfully obtained information, the independent source exception allows the admission of the evidence, and suppression is not justified.”). 15 B.

2025See State v. Thibodeau, 2000 ME 52, ¶ 6 , 747 A.2d 596 (“The independent source doctrine, however, permits the introduction of evidence initially discovered 8 We decline to determine whether the detective’s use of the emergency call function on the cellphone constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment because the answer is not necessary to the fair disposition of this case. 14 during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search, but later obtained through independent legal activities that are untainted by the initial illegal activity.” (quotation marks omitted)). [¶27] Notably, in this inst

2025See State v. Thibodeau, 2000 ME 52, ¶ 6 , 747 A.2d 596 (“The independent source doctrine, however, permits the introduction of evidence initially discovered 8 We decline to determine whether the detective’s use of the emergency call function on the cellphone constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment because the answer is not necessary to the fair disposition of this case. 14 during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search, but later obtained through independent legal activities that are untainted by the initial illegal activity.” (quotation marks omitted)). [¶27] Notably, in this inst

2022Our standing analysis in Fitzgerald v. Baxter State Park Authority is applicable because the plaintiffs in Fitzgerald, like those here, asserted that a state agency entrusted with management of public lands had acted in excess of its authority. 385 A.2d 189, 194, 196-97 (Me. 1978).

2007See State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me. 1990). [6] See State v. Crowley, 1998 ME 187, ¶¶ 2, 8 , 714 A.2d 834, 836-37 (named informant with potentially stale first-hand information and conclusory statements by reliable informants); State v. Dignoti, 682 A.2d 666, 668, 670 (Me. 1996) (multiple informants, including citizen informants and one who made statement against penal interest); State v. Allard, 674 A.2d 921, 922 (Me.1996) (monitored purchases by confidential informant and information from concerned citizen informants); State v. Ward, 624 A.2d 485, 487 (Me.1993) (first informant, rel

2007See State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me. 1990). [6] See State v. Crowley, 1998 ME 187, ¶¶ 2, 8 , 714 A.2d 834, 836-37 (named informant with potentially stale first-hand information and conclusory statements by reliable informants); State v. Dignoti, 682 A.2d 666, 668, 670 (Me. 1996) (multiple informants, including citizen informants and one who made statement against penal interest); State v. Allard, 674 A.2d 921, 922 (Me.1996) (monitored purchases by confidential informant and information from concerned citizen informants); State v. Ward, 624 A.2d 485, 487 (Me.1993) (first informant, rel

2007See State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me. 1990). [6] See State v. Crowley, 1998 ME 187, ¶¶ 2, 8 , 714 A.2d 834, 836-37 (named informant with potentially stale first-hand information and conclusory statements by reliable informants); State v. Dignoti, 682 A.2d 666, 668, 670 (Me. 1996) (multiple informants, including citizen informants and one who made statement against penal interest); State v. Allard, 674 A.2d 921, 922 (Me.1996) (monitored purchases by confidential informant and information from concerned citizen informants); State v. Ward, 624 A.2d 485, 487 (Me.1993) (first informant, rel

2007See State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me. 1990). [6] See State v. Crowley, 1998 ME 187, ¶¶ 2, 8 , 714 A.2d 834, 836-37 (named informant with potentially stale first-hand information and conclusory statements by reliable informants); State v. Dignoti, 682 A.2d 666, 668, 670 (Me. 1996) (multiple informants, including citizen informants and one who made statement against penal interest); State v. Allard, 674 A.2d 921, 922 (Me.1996) (monitored purchases by confidential informant and information from concerned citizen informants); State v. Ward, 624 A.2d 485, 487 (Me.1993) (first informant, rel

2007See State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me. 1990). [6] See State v. Crowley, 1998 ME 187, ¶¶ 2, 8 , 714 A.2d 834, 836-37 (named informant with potentially stale first-hand information and conclusory statements by reliable informants); State v. Dignoti, 682 A.2d 666, 668, 670 (Me. 1996) (multiple informants, including citizen informants and one who made statement against penal interest); State v. Allard, 674 A.2d 921, 922 (Me.1996) (monitored purchases by confidential informant and information from concerned citizen informants); State v. Ward, 624 A.2d 485, 487 (Me.1993) (first informant, rel

2007See State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me. 1990). [6] See State v. Crowley, 1998 ME 187, ¶¶ 2, 8 , 714 A.2d 834, 836-37 (named informant with potentially stale first-hand information and conclusory statements by reliable informants); State v. Dignoti, 682 A.2d 666, 668, 670 (Me. 1996) (multiple informants, including citizen informants and one who made statement against penal interest); State v. Allard, 674 A.2d 921, 922 (Me.1996) (monitored purchases by confidential informant and information from concerned citizen informants); State v. Ward, 624 A.2d 485, 487 (Me.1993) (first informant, rel

2007See State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me. 1990). [6] See State v. Crowley, 1998 ME 187, ¶¶ 2, 8 , 714 A.2d 834, 836-37 (named informant with potentially stale first-hand information and conclusory statements by reliable informants); State v. Dignoti, 682 A.2d 666, 668, 670 (Me. 1996) (multiple informants, including citizen informants and one who made statement against penal interest); State v. Allard, 674 A.2d 921, 922 (Me.1996) (monitored purchases by confidential informant and information from concerned citizen informants); State v. Ward, 624 A.2d 485, 487 (Me.1993) (first informant, rel

2007See State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me. 1990). [6] See State v. Crowley, 1998 ME 187, ¶¶ 2, 8 , 714 A.2d 834, 836-37 (named informant with potentially stale first-hand information and conclusory statements by reliable informants); State v. Dignoti, 682 A.2d 666, 668, 670 (Me. 1996) (multiple informants, including citizen informants and one who made statement against penal interest); State v. Allard, 674 A.2d 921, 922 (Me.1996) (monitored purchases by confidential informant and information from concerned citizen informants); State v. Ward, 624 A.2d 485, 487 (Me.1993) (first informant, rel

2007See State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me. 1990). [6] See State v. Crowley, 1998 ME 187, ¶¶ 2, 8 , 714 A.2d 834, 836-37 (named informant with potentially stale first-hand information and conclusory statements by reliable informants); State v. Dignoti, 682 A.2d 666, 668, 670 (Me. 1996) (multiple informants, including citizen informants and one who made statement against penal interest); State v. Allard, 674 A.2d 921, 922 (Me.1996) (monitored purchases by confidential informant and information from concerned citizen informants); State v. Ward, 624 A.2d 485, 487 (Me.1993) (first informant, rel

2007See State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me. 1990). [6] See State v. Crowley, 1998 ME 187, ¶¶ 2, 8 , 714 A.2d 834, 836-37 (named informant with potentially stale first-hand information and conclusory statements by reliable informants); State v. Dignoti, 682 A.2d 666, 668, 670 (Me. 1996) (multiple informants, including citizen informants and one who made statement against penal interest); State v. Allard, 674 A.2d 921, 922 (Me.1996) (monitored purchases by confidential informant and information from concerned citizen informants); State v. Ward, 624 A.2d 485, 487 (Me.1993) (first informant, rel

2007See State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me. 1990). [6] See State v. Crowley, 1998 ME 187, ¶¶ 2, 8 , 714 A.2d 834, 836-37 (named informant with potentially stale first-hand information and conclusory statements by reliable informants); State v. Dignoti, 682 A.2d 666, 668, 670 (Me. 1996) (multiple informants, including citizen informants and one who made statement against penal interest); State v. Allard, 674 A.2d 921, 922 (Me.1996) (monitored purchases by confidential informant and information from concerned citizen informants); State v. Ward, 624 A.2d 485, 487 (Me.1993) (first informant, rel

2007See State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me. 1990). [6] See State v. Crowley, 1998 ME 187, ¶¶ 2, 8 , 714 A.2d 834, 836-37 (named informant with potentially stale first-hand information and conclusory statements by reliable informants); State v. Dignoti, 682 A.2d 666, 668, 670 (Me. 1996) (multiple informants, including citizen informants and one who made statement against penal interest); State v. Allard, 674 A.2d 921, 922 (Me.1996) (monitored purchases by confidential informant and information from concerned citizen informants); State v. Ward, 624 A.2d 485, 487 (Me.1993) (first informant, rel

2007See State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016, 1019 (Me. 1990). [6] See State v. Crowley, 1998 ME 187, ¶¶ 2, 8 , 714 A.2d 834, 836-37 (named informant with potentially stale first-hand information and conclusory statements by reliable informants); State v. Dignoti, 682 A.2d 666, 668, 670 (Me. 1996) (multiple informants, including citizen informants and one who made statement against penal interest); State v. Allard, 674 A.2d 921, 922 (Me.1996) (monitored purchases by confidential informant and information from concerned citizen informants); State v. Ward, 624 A.2d 485, 487 (Me.1993) (first informant, rel

1998See DesMarais v. Desjardins, 664 A.2d 840, 844 (Me. 1995). [¶ 8] Whether a claim is legal or equitable depends upon the basic nature of the claim, including the remedy sought, as evidenced by the source of the claim or the nature of the pleadings.

1998See id.

1990Consequently, the independent source exception to the exclusionary rule “allows admission of evidence which was gained through an independent source as well as the tainted source.” United States v. Silvestri, 787 F.2d 736, 740 (1st Cir.1986), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1233 , 108 S.Ct. 2897 , 101 L.Ed.2d 931 (1988); see also Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 537 , 108 S.Ct. 2529, 2533 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988); United States v. Moscatiello, 771 F.2d 589, 602-04 (1st Cir.1985), vacated on other grounds, 476 U.S. 1138 , 106 S.Ct. 2241 , 90 L.Ed.2d 688 (1986).