- McWILLIAMS, __ C5 ___, ___ CR3 ___, ___ P3 ___ (22) #S268320:
Responding to a report of suspicious activity in the area, a police officer unlawfully detained a bystander in a parked car, who had no apparent connection to the report. The officer ran a records search and learned that the bystander, McWilliams, was on parole and subject to warrantless, suspicionless parole searches. The officer proceeded to search McWilliams and his vehicle, where the officer found an unloaded gun, ammunition, drugs, and drug paraphernalia.
As a general rule, evidence seized as a result of an unlawful search or seizure is inadmissible against the defendant in a subsequent prosecution. But the law permits use of the evidence when the causal connection “between the lawless conduct of the police and the discovery of the challenged evidence has ‘become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.’” (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 487.)
The Court of Appeal held that the officer’s discovery of McWilliams’s parole search condition sufficiently attenuated the connection between the unlawful detention and the contraband found in McWilliams’s vehicle.
The California Supreme Court, per Kruger, J., reverses.
In conducting an attenuation inquiry, the court relies on the three factors set out in Brown v. Illinois (1975) 422 U.S. 590, 603–604:
(1) the “temporal proximity” between the unlawful conduct and the discovery of evidence;
(2) the “presence of intervening circumstances”;
(3) the “purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.”
Once the defendant establishes a Fourth Amendment violation, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing admissibility under this exception to the exclusionary rule.
The court spends a good portion of the opinion distinguishing this case from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (16), wherein it was held that discovery of an outstanding arrest warrant after an illegal detention constituted adequate “attenuation.”
The court holds:
No substantial time passed between Officer Croucher’s illegal detention of McWilliams and his seizure of the evidence in this case. Officer Croucher’s subsequent discovery of McWilliams’s parole search condition, and his discretionary decision to conduct the parole search, did little to attenuate the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence. And Officer Croucher’s decision to conduct the stop, without any evident basis to believe McWilliams was connected to the activity Officer Croucher set out to investigate, indicates a purposefulness that further justifies the exclusion of the evidence.
Note: The following case was cited by the People:
Durant, 205 CA4 57, 140 CR3 103 (12): Illegal traffic stop. Off. then recognized Def. as being on probation. Patdown found firearm. Supp. Den. Aff. Probation search condition attenuated taint of illegal stop.
Footnote 5 of the McWILLIAMS opinion reads:
Although People v. Durant, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th 57, found attenuation on a different set of facts, we disapprove the opinion to the extent its reasoning is inconsistent with this opinion.
Bottom of page 153, top of 154 of the print version of Bell’s should now have this revised section:
And valid search condition may “remove the taint” of an illegal auto stop:
Strieff, 579 US ___, 136 SC 2056, 195 LE2 400 (16) #14–1373: Off. stopped Def. on suspicion of drug activity, demanded ID. Ran check. Outstanding warrant. Arrest. Meth and drug paraphernalia. Held, stop was unlawful, but valid warrant “attenuated” the connection. Evidence admissible. DISS: Sotomayor.
But cf. McWILLIAMS, __ C5 ___, ___ CR3 ___, ___ P3 ___ (22) #S268320: Illegal detention of passenger in parked car. Record check revealed probation. Off. “discretionary decision” to search was not sufficient attenuation. To that extent, disapproves of Durant, below.
*Durant, 205 CA4 57, 140 CR3 103 (12): Illegal traffic stop. Off. then recognized Def. as being on probation. Patdown found firearm. Supp. Den. Aff. Probation search condition attenuated taint of illegal stop. *[Disapproved by McWILLIAMS]