attenuation doctrine in Delaware

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2022A, at 6:00–6:25. 30 Id. 31 Id. at 6:52–6:53. 32 Jones v. State, 745 A.2d 856, 873 (Del. 1999) 33 See Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280, 1292 (Del. 2008) (“[T]aint may be purged and the evidence may be admissible through one of the doctrinal exceptions to the exclusionary rule, such as the independent source doctrine, the inevitable discovery doctrine, the exigent circumstances doctrine, and the attenuation doctrine.”). 34 The inevitable discovery doctrine was explained in Garnett I.

2015It provides for the exclusion from trial of any evidence recovered or derived from an illegal search and seizure.”42 However, the Delaware Supreme Court has recognized occasions where “official misconduct should not fatally taint evidence that would have been discovered absent that official misconduct.” 43 Rather, “taint may be purged and the evidence may be admissible through one of the doctrinal exceptions to the exclusionary rule, such as the independent source doctrine, the inevitable discovery doctrine, the exigent circumstances doctrine, and the attenuation doctrine.” 44 Delaware accepts

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2022Pa. Oct. 31, 2006) (referring to Vasquez De Reyes, 149 F.3d 192 ). 55 See Norman, 976 A.2d at 859 . 13 challenged evidence becomes sufficiently attenuated.”56 “Thus, even if there is an illegal search or seizure, direct or derivative evidence, such as consent, may still be admissible if the taint is sufficiently ‘purged.’”57 The attenuation doctrine was an outgrowth of the Supreme Court’s decision in Wong Sun v. United States,58 which determined that a statement made after an illegal arrest or search should be sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the constitutional vi

2015It provides for the exclusion from trial of any evidence recovered or derived from an illegal search and seizure.”42 However, the Delaware Supreme Court has recognized occasions where “official misconduct should not fatally taint evidence that would have been discovered absent that official misconduct.” 43 Rather, “taint may be purged and the evidence may be admissible through one of the doctrinal exceptions to the exclusionary rule, such as the independent source doctrine, the inevitable discovery doctrine, the exigent circumstances doctrine, and the attenuation doctrine.” 44 Delaware accepts

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2026See also Lopez- Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1291-92 (acknowledging that “taint may be purged” from evidence pursuant to the independent source doctrine). 79 See Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to possibly tainted evidence). 80 See Garnett, 308 A.3d 625 (applying the attenuation doctrine to tainted evidence). 81 See Patrick, 227 A.2d 486 (applying the exigent circumstances doctrine to tainted evidence). 82 See Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403 (Del. 2007) (applying the emergency doctrine to tainted evidence). 83 See, e.g., Cook, 374 A.2d 264 (applying the inevitable discov

2022Moving on to factor two, “the presence of intervening circumstances,”66 the United States Supreme Court has explained that 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 interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has 62 Lopez-Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1293 (citing Brown, 422 U.S. at 603–04). 63 Id. (quoting Brown, 422 U.S. at 603 ). 64 See Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 239 (2016) (“First, we look to the “temporal proxi

2022Moving on to factor two, “the presence of intervening circumstances,”66 the United States Supreme Court has explained that 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 interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has 62 Lopez-Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1293 (citing Brown, 422 U.S. at 603–04). 63 Id. (quoting Brown, 422 U.S. at 603 ). 64 See Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 239 (2016) (“First, we look to the “temporal proxi

2022Moving on to factor two, “the presence of intervening circumstances,”66 the United States Supreme Court has explained that 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 interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has 62 Lopez-Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1293 (citing Brown, 422 U.S. at 603–04). 63 Id. (quoting Brown, 422 U.S. at 603 ). 64 See Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 239 (2016) (“First, we look to the “temporal proxi

2015Inevitable Discovery Doctrine The Delaware Supreme Court has recognized exceptions to the warrant requirements where “official misconduct should not fatally taint evidence ...”27 Rather, “taint may be purged and the evidence may be admissible through one of the doctrinal exceptions to the exclusionary rule, such as the independent source doctrine, the inevitable discovery doctrine, the exigent circumstances doctrine, and the attenuation doctrine.”28 Delaware “has long accepted and consistently applied the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.”29 This exception provides that

2008See also United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521 (7th Cir.1997) (noting that the attenuation doctrine is used to support the admission of evidence in three general categories: "admission of voluntary confessions obtained after illegal arrests," "admission of evidence obtained during consensual searches following illegal seizures,” "the admission of voluntary confessions given after Miranda warnings where an earlier confession was obtained before the defendant was advised of his fifth amendment rights,” and "the admission of a witness’ testimony at trial where the identity of the witness was