source doctrine in Washington

2025The independent source exception is a related doctrine and allows that “evidence tainted by unlawful governmental action is not subject to suppression . . . provided that it ultimately is obtained pursuant to a valid warrant or other lawful means.” Gaines, 154 Wn.2d at 718 .

2024State v. Gaines, 154 Wn.2d 711 , 116 P.3d 993 (2005) (recognizing the independent source exception); Mayfield, 192 Wn.2d 871 (recognizing the attenuation doctrine, albeit in a narrower form than the federal rule).

2024State v. Gaines, 154 Wn.2d 711 , 116 P.3d 993 (2005) (recognizing the independent source exception); Mayfield, 192 Wn.2d 871 (recognizing the attenuation doctrine, albeit in a narrower form than the federal rule).

2023Under the independent source doctrine, evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search may nonetheless be admissible if it is “ultimately obtained . . . pursuant to a valid warrant or other lawful means independent of the unlawful action.” State v. Gaines, 154 Wn.2d 711, 718 , 116 P.3d 993 (2005).

2019Winterstein, 167 Wash.2d at 634 , 220 P.3d 1226 . ¶ 39 Some cases applying the independent source doctrine have held that even though official misconduct was arguably a "but for" cause of the discovery of evidence, the evidence was nevertheless admissible.

2019State v. Afana, 169 Wash.2d 169 , 179-84, 233 P.3d 879 (2010) (rejecting the good faith exception); State v. Winterstein, 167 Wash.2d 620 , 631-36, 220 P.3d 1226 (2009) (rejecting the inevitable discovery doctrine); State v. Gaines, 154 Wash.2d 711 , 717-22, 116 P.3d 993 (2005) (adopting the independent source doctrine).

2021Ed. 2d 472 (1988)). 15 Id. 7 No. 80963-6-I/8 Martinez-Castro challenges seven findings of fact related to the independent source doctrine.

2018Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 , 537, 108 S.Ct. 2529 , 101 L.Ed. 2d 472 (1988) (quoting Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 443, 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed. 2d 377 (1984) ). ¶ 16 In applying the independent source doctrine, the determinative question is whether the challenged evidence was discovered through a source independent from the initial illegality.

2011State v. Bonds, 98 Wash.2d 1, 12 , 653 P.2d 1024 (1982). ¶ 12 The State points out that this court has recognized exceptions to Washington's exclusionary rule, such as the independent source exception, which this court has recognized in State v. Coates, 107 Wash.2d 882, 887 , 735 P.2d 64 (1987), and Gaines, 154 Wash.2d 711 , 116 P.3d 993 .

2011State v. Bonds, 98 Wash.2d 1, 12 , 653 P.2d 1024 (1982). ¶ 12 The State points out that this court has recognized exceptions to Washington's exclusionary rule, such as the independent source exception, which this court has recognized in State v. Coates, 107 Wash.2d 882, 887 , 735 P.2d 64 (1987), and Gaines, 154 Wash.2d 711 , 116 P.3d 993 .

2023Miles rejected a standard a lower court had apparently applied for evaluating the motivation prong of the independent source doctrine in which the lower court analyzed whether “the State would have come upon the evidence other than from referral by the Securities Division after its flawed investigation.” Id. at 289-90 .

2023The independent source doctrine does not rest upon such metaphysical analysis, but upon the policy that, while the government should not profit from its illegal activity, neither should it be placed in a worse position than it would have otherwise occupied.’ ” 159 Wn.

2011Gaines, 154 Wash.2d at 717-18, 722 , 116 P.3d 993 ; see Winterstein, 167 Wash.2d at 634, 220 P.3d 1226 ; see also State v. Smith, 113 Wash.App. 846, 856 , 55 P.3d 686 (2002), review denied, 149 Wash.2d 1014 , 69 P.3d 876 (2003). ¶ 29 Under the independent source doctrine, evidence tainted by unlawful government action is not subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule if officers ultimately obtain it using "a valid warrant or other lawful means independent of the unlawful action." Gaines, 154 Wash.2d at 718 , 116 P.3d 993 (emphasis added); State v. Hilton, 164 Wash.App. 81 , ___, 261 P.

2005Division Three recently cited Richman and Ludvik for the proposition that “the independent source doctrine, like the inevitable discovery doctrine, does not offend the protections of article I, section 7.” State v. Smith, 113 Wn.

2019State v. Afana, 169 Wash.2d 169 , 179-84, 233 P.3d 879 (2010) (rejecting the good faith exception); State v. Winterstein, 167 Wash.2d 620 , 631-36, 220 P.3d 1226 (2009) (rejecting the inevitable discovery doctrine); State v. Gaines, 154 Wash.2d 711 , 717-22, 116 P.3d 993 (2005) (adopting the independent source doctrine).

2011See also State v. Afana, 169 Wash.2d 169, 181 , 233 P.3d 879 (2010). ¶ 39 The State cites to factually analogous federal cases to argue the independent source exception applies.

2019State v. Afana, 169 Wash.2d 169 , 179-84, 233 P.3d 879 (2010) (rejecting the good faith exception); State v. Winterstein, 167 Wash.2d 620 , 631-36, 220 P.3d 1226 (2009) (rejecting the inevitable discovery doctrine); State v. Gaines, 154 Wash.2d 711 , 717-22, 116 P.3d 993 (2005) (adopting the independent source doctrine).

2011See also State v. Afana, 169 Wash.2d 169, 181 , 233 P.3d 879 (2010). ¶ 39 The State cites to factually analogous federal cases to argue the independent source exception applies.

2005Division Three recently cited Richman and Ludvik for the proposition that "the independent source doctrine, like the inevitable discovery doctrine, does not offend the protections of article 1, section 7." State v. Smith, 113 Wash.App. 846, 856 , 55 P.3d 686 (2002) (citing Richman, 85 Wash.App. at 576-77 , 933 P.2d 1088 ; Ludvik, 40 Wash.App. at 263 , 698 P.2d 1064 ), review denied, 149 Wash.2d 1014 , 69 P.3d 876 (2003).

2005Division Three recently cited Richman and Ludvik for the proposition that "the independent source doctrine, like the inevitable discovery doctrine, does not offend the protections of article 1, section 7." State v. Smith, 113 Wash.App. 846, 856 , 55 P.3d 686 (2002) (citing Richman, 85 Wash.App. at 576-77 , 933 P.2d 1088 ; Ludvik, 40 Wash.App. at 263 , 698 P.2d 1064 ), review denied, 149 Wash.2d 1014 , 69 P.3d 876 (2003).

2024If the illegally obtained information did not affect the court’s decision to issue the warrant or the decision of the state agents to seek the warrant, then the evidence is “admissible through the lawful warrant under the independent source doctrine.” Betancourth, 190 Wn.2d at 365 .

2024This result aligns with our holding on the independent source doctrine in State v. Betancourth, though not precisely with our attenuation doctrine. 190 Wn.2d 357 , 413 P.3d 566 (2018).

2019Winterstein, 167 Wash.2d at 634 , 220 P.3d 1226 . ¶ 39 Some cases applying the independent source doctrine have held that even though official misconduct was arguably a "but for" cause of the discovery of evidence, the evidence was nevertheless admissible.

2019State v. Afana, 169 Wash.2d 169 , 179-84, 233 P.3d 879 (2010) (rejecting the good faith exception); State v. Winterstein, 167 Wash.2d 620 , 631-36, 220 P.3d 1226 (2009) (rejecting the inevitable discovery doctrine); State v. Gaines, 154 Wash.2d 711 , 717-22, 116 P.3d 993 (2005) (adopting the independent source doctrine).

2011App. 846, 856 , 55 P.3d 686 (2002), review denied, 149 Wn.2d 1014 (2003). ¶29 Under the independent source doctrine, evidence tainted by unlawful government action is not subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule if officers ultimately obtain it using “a valid warrant or other lawful means independent of the unlawful action.” Gaines, 154 Wn.2d at 718 (emphasis added); State v. Hilton, 164 Wn.

2011Gaines, 154 Wash.2d at 717-18, 722 , 116 P.3d 993 ; see Winterstein, 167 Wash.2d at 634, 220 P.3d 1226 ; see also State v. Smith, 113 Wash.App. 846, 856 , 55 P.3d 686 (2002), review denied, 149 Wash.2d 1014 , 69 P.3d 876 (2003). ¶ 29 Under the independent source doctrine, evidence tainted by unlawful government action is not subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule if officers ultimately obtain it using "a valid warrant or other lawful means independent of the unlawful action." Gaines, 154 Wash.2d at 718 , 116 P.3d 993 (emphasis added); State v. Hilton, 164 Wash.App. 81 , ___, 261 P.

2005We noted that there was “no principled difference between the inevitable discovery rule and the independent source doctrine.” Richman, 85 Wn.

2005We noted that there was "no principled difference between the inevitable discovery rule and the independent source doctrine." Richman, 85 Wash.App. at 576 , 933 P.2d 1088 .

2021App. 81, 89 , 261 P.3d 683 (2011) (citing State v. Hill, 123 Wn.2d 641, 644 , 870 P.2d 313 (1994)). 6 No. 80963-6-I/7 undisputed evidence from the record.10 We treat unchallenged findings as verities on appeal and review conclusions of law de novo.11 Evidence obtained from an illegal search and seizure is “subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule” unless an exception to the exclusionary rule applies.12 One of the “well-established” exceptions to the exclusionary rule is the independent source doctrine.13 In applying the independent source doctrine, the determinative question is wheth

2021To determine whether challenged evidence truly has an independent source, courts ask whether the illegally obtained information affected (1) the magistrate’s decision to issue the warrant, or (2) the decision of the state agents to seek the warrant.[14] But where the “illegal search in no way contributed to the issuance of the warrant and police would have sought the warrant even absent the initial illegality, then the evidence is admissible through the lawful warrant under the independent source doctrine.”15 10In re LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 219 , 728 P.2d 138 (1986) (citing State v. Holland, 9

2013The Court of Appeals agreed with the State that “the victims’ testimonies were admissible under the independent source exception because the emergency aid and community care-taking exceptions acted as intervening factors.” State v. Smith, 165 Wn.

2013See id. ¶15 Judge Armstrong disagreed that the State could rely on the independent source doctrine, noting that “absent the initial, unlawful search of the motel guest registry, the officers had no independent basis for knocking on Smith’s door....

2019For instance, in Rothenberger , the defendant was a passenger in a car that was allegedly unlawfully stopped by police. 73 Wash.2d at 597 , 440 P.2d 184 .

2019For instance, in Rothenberger , the defendant was a passenger in a car that was allegedly unlawfully stopped by police. 73 Wash.2d at 597 , 440 P.2d 184 .