attenuation exception in Michigan

2024Utah v Strieff, 579 US 232 , 237- 238; 136 S Ct 2056 ; 195 L Ed 2d 400 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2019Under the related doctrine of attenuation, “[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 interest protected -6- by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained.” Id. at ___; 136 S Ct at 206 (citation omitted).

2017A decision from this Court, Reese, 281 Mich App at 290 , is instructive as well on the issue of the attenuation doctrine.

2017A decision from this Court, Reese, 281 Mich App at 290 , is instructive as well on the issue of the attenuation doctrine.

1999Three exceptions to the exclusionary rule have emerged: the independent source exception, the attenuation exception, and the inevitable discovery exception. [People v LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich 496, 508-509 ; 556 NW2d 498 (1996) (citations omitted).] In Nix v Williams, 467 US 431 ; 104 S Ct 2501 ; 81 L Ed 2d 377 (1984), the United States Supreme Court considered whether there is an exception to the exclusionary rule for evidence that inevitably would have been discovered regardless of the constitutional violation.

1999Three exceptions to the exclusionary rule have emerged: the independent source exception, the attenuation exception, and the inevitable discovery exception. [People v LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich 496, 508-509 ; 556 NW2d 498 (1996) (citations omitted).] In Nix v Williams, 467 US 431 ; 104 S Ct 2501 ; 81 L Ed 2d 377 (1984), the United States Supreme Court considered whether there is an exception to the exclusionary rule for evidence that inevitably would have been discovered regardless of the constitutional violation.

2019“Under the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule, exclusion is improper when the connection between the illegality and the discovery of the challenged evidence has become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint. . . .” People v Frazier, 478 Mich 231, 253 ; 733 NW2d 713 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2019“Under the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule, exclusion is improper when the connection between the illegality and the discovery of the challenged evidence has become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint. . . .” People v Frazier, 478 Mich 231, 253 ; 733 NW2d 713 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2007Under the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule, exclusion is improper when the connection between the illegality and the discovery of the challenged evidence has “ ‘become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint,’ ” Wong Sun, supra at 487 , quoting Nardone v United States, 308 US 338, 341 ; 60 S Ct 266 ; 84 L Ed 307 (1939).

2007Under the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule, exclusion is improper when the connection between the illegality and the discovery of the challenged evidence has “ ‘become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint,’ ” Wong Sun, supra at 487 , quoting Nardone v United States, 308 US 338, 341 ; 60 S Ct 266 ; 84 L Ed 307 (1939).

2007Under the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule, exclusion is improper when the connection between the illegality and the discovery of the challenged evidence has “ ‘become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint,’ ” Wong Sun, supra at 487 , quoting Nardone v United States, 308 US 338, 341 ; 60 S Ct 266 ; 84 L Ed 307 (1939).

2007Under the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule, exclusion is improper when the connection between the illegality and the discovery of the challenged evidence has "`become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint,'" Wong Sun, supra at 487 , 83 S.Ct. 407 quoting Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939).

1999Three exceptions to the exclusionary rule have emerged: the independent source exception, the attenuation exception, and the inevitable discovery exception. [People v LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich 496, 508-509 ; 556 NW2d 498 (1996) (citations omitted).] In Nix v Williams, 467 US 431 ; 104 S Ct 2501 ; 81 L Ed 2d 377 (1984), the United States Supreme Court considered whether there is an exception to the exclusionary rule for evidence that inevitably would have been discovered regardless of the constitutional violation.

1999Three exceptions to the exclusionary rule have emerged: the independent source exception, the attenuation exception, and the inevitable discovery exception. [People v LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich 496, 508-509 ; 556 NW2d 498 (1996) (citations omitted).] In Nix v Williams, 467 US 431 ; 104 S Ct 2501 ; 81 L Ed 2d 377 (1984), the United States Supreme Court considered whether there is an exception to the exclusionary rule for evidence that inevitably would have been discovered regardless of the constitutional violation.

2024Also relevant here, the judicially created exclusionary rule encompasses both the evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search and seizure, as well as any “evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality,” also known colloquially as “fruit of 5 Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 ; 88 S Ct 1868 ; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968). 6 The circuit court neglected to evaluate the scope of Terry as it applies to Trooper Tompkins’s pat-down of Wilkins. -3- the poisonous tree,” subject to the attenuation-doctrine analysis.

2024Also relevant here, the judicially created exclusionary rule encompasses both the evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search and seizure, as well as any “evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality,” also known colloquially as “fruit of 5 Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 ; 88 S Ct 1868 ; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968). 6 The circuit court neglected to evaluate the scope of Terry as it applies to Trooper Tompkins’s pat-down of Wilkins. -3- the poisonous tree,” subject to the attenuation-doctrine analysis.

2007The court’s attenuation analysis should be “appropriately concerned with the differences between live-witness testimony and inanimate evidence ....” Id. at 278-279 .

2007The court's attenuation analysis should be "appropriately concerned with the differences between live-witness testimony and inanimate evidence. . . ." Id. at 278-279 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 .

2004People v. Stevens (After Remand), 460 Mich. 626, 636 , 597 N.W.2d 53 (1999), quoting People v. LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich. 496, 508-509 , 556 N.W.2d 498 (1996). [4] People v. Marxhausen, 204 Mich. 559 , 171 N.W. 557 (1919). [5] In Lo-Ji Sales, the local justice wholly abdicated his duty as a "detached and neutral magistrate" when he assisted in the search himself, and abandoned his judicial role when he authorized a search warrant that, except for specification of copies of two "adult" films previously purchased by an investigator, did not particularly describe the items to be seized, b

2004People v. Stevens (After Remand), 460 Mich. 626, 636 , 597 N.W.2d 53 (1999), quoting People v. LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich. 496, 508-509 , 556 N.W.2d 498 (1996). [4] People v. Marxhausen, 204 Mich. 559 , 171 N.W. 557 (1919). [5] In Lo-Ji Sales, the local justice wholly abdicated his duty as a "detached and neutral magistrate" when he assisted in the search himself, and abandoned his judicial role when he authorized a search warrant that, except for specification of copies of two "adult" films previously purchased by an investigator, did not particularly describe the items to be seized, b

2004People v. Stevens (After Remand), 460 Mich. 626, 636 , 597 N.W.2d 53 (1999), quoting People v. LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich. 496, 508-509 , 556 N.W.2d 498 (1996). [4] People v. Marxhausen, 204 Mich. 559 , 171 N.W. 557 (1919). [5] In Lo-Ji Sales, the local justice wholly abdicated his duty as a "detached and neutral magistrate" when he assisted in the search himself, and abandoned his judicial role when he authorized a search warrant that, except for specification of copies of two "adult" films previously purchased by an investigator, did not particularly describe the items to be seized, b

2004People v. Stevens (After Remand), 460 Mich. 626, 636 , 597 N.W.2d 53 (1999), quoting People v. LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich. 496, 508-509 , 556 N.W.2d 498 (1996). [4] People v. Marxhausen, 204 Mich. 559 , 171 N.W. 557 (1919). [5] In Lo-Ji Sales, the local justice wholly abdicated his duty as a "detached and neutral magistrate" when he assisted in the search himself, and abandoned his judicial role when he authorized a search warrant that, except for specification of copies of two "adult" films previously purchased by an investigator, did not particularly describe the items to be seized, b

1997Three exceptions to the exclusionary rale havé emerged: the independent source exception, the attenuation exception, and the inevitable discovery exception. [People v LoCicero, 453 Mich 496, 508 ; 556 NW2d 498 (1996) (citations omitted).] To determine whether exclusion is proper, we must “evaluate the circumstances of this case in the light of the policy served by the exclusionary rule . . . .” Brown v Illinois, 422 US 590, 604 ; 95 S Ct 2254 ; 45 L Ed 2d 416 (1975).

1997Three exceptions to the exclusionary rale havé emerged: the independent source exception, the attenuation exception, and the inevitable discovery exception. [People v LoCicero, 453 Mich 496, 508 ; 556 NW2d 498 (1996) (citations omitted).] To determine whether exclusion is proper, we must “evaluate the circumstances of this case in the light of the policy served by the exclusionary rule . . . .” Brown v Illinois, 422 US 590, 604 ; 95 S Ct 2254 ; 45 L Ed 2d 416 (1975).

1996Stratton, The attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule: A study in attenuated principle and dissipated logic, 75 J Crim L & Criminology 139 (1984). 21 Silverthorne Lumber Co v United States, 251 US 385 ; 40 S Ct 182 ; 64 L Ed 319 (1920) (the government may use tainted evidence if it also discovered the evidence by legal, independent means). 22 Courts and commentators credit the following passage in Nardone v United States, 308 US 338, 341 ; 60 S Ct 266 ; 84 L Ed 307 (1939), as establishing the attenuation exception.

1996Stratton, The attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule: A study in attenuated principle and dissipated logic, 75 J Crim L & Criminology 139 (1984). 21 Silverthorne Lumber Co v United States, 251 US 385 ; 40 S Ct 182 ; 64 L Ed 319 (1920) (the government may use tainted evidence if it also discovered the evidence by legal, independent means). 22 Courts and commentators credit the following passage in Nardone v United States, 308 US 338, 341 ; 60 S Ct 266 ; 84 L Ed 307 (1939), as establishing the attenuation exception.

1996Id. at 485 . 23 Nix v Williams, 467 US 431 ; 104 S Ct 2501 ; 81 L Ed 2d 377 (1984) (suppression of tainted evidence is not required where the prosecution establishes that the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means, i.e., discovery was inevitable). 24 Rios v United States, 364 US 253, 262 ; 80 S Ct 1431 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1688 (1960) (if the initial arrest of a defendant was unlawful “nothing that happened thereafter could make that arrest lawful or justify a search as its incident”).

1996Id. at 485 . 23 Nix v Williams, 467 US 431 ; 104 S Ct 2501 ; 81 L Ed 2d 377 (1984) (suppression of tainted evidence is not required where the prosecution establishes that the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means, i.e., discovery was inevitable). 24 Rios v United States, 364 US 253, 262 ; 80 S Ct 1431 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1688 (1960) (if the initial arrest of a defendant was unlawful “nothing that happened thereafter could make that arrest lawful or justify a search as its incident”).

1996Lambert relied on the attenuation exception discussed in People v Walker, 27 Mich App 609, 617 ; 183 NW2d 871 (1970).

1996Lambert relied on the attenuation exception discussed in People v Walker, 27 Mich App 609, 617 ; 183 NW2d 871 (1970).

1996The exclusionary rule forbids the use of direct and indirect evidence acquired from governmental misconduct, such as evidence from an illegal police search. 20 Three exceptions to the exclusionary rule have emerged: the independent source exception, 21 the attenuation exception, 22 and the inevitable discovery *509 exception. 23 The Court of Appeals ruled the evidence admissible, relying on its holding in People v Lambert, 174 Mich App 610 ; 436 NW2d 699 (1989).

1996The exclusionary rule forbids the use of direct and indirect evidence acquired from governmental misconduct, such as evidence from an illegal police search. 20 Three exceptions to the exclusionary rule have emerged: the independent source exception, 21 the attenuation exception, 22 and the inevitable discovery *509 exception. 23 The Court of Appeals ruled the evidence admissible, relying on its holding in People v Lambert, 174 Mich App 610 ; 436 NW2d 699 (1989).