U.S. Supreme Court Will Consider “Independent Source” Exception Test
This case law update was written by James P. Garay Heelan, an attorney at the law firm of Shaw Bransford & Roth, where he has practiced federal personnel and employment law since 2012. Mr. Heelan represents federal personnel across the Executive Branch, including career senior executives, law enforcement officers, foreign service officers, intelligence officers, and agencies in matters of federal personnel and employment law.
Deciding the test for the “independent source” exception to the exclusionary rule is before the U.S. Supreme Court this term.
In 1988, the Supreme Court established an exception to the exclusionary rule, for evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment that would have been lawfully obtained through an “independent source.” In the 34 years since, the federal courts of appeal have divided over whether the “independent source” test is subjective—asking whether the actual officers involved would have sought the relevant evidence, or objective—asking whether a “hypothetical reasonable officer” would have sought the relevant evidence. The Court is now circulating an unopposed petition asking the justices to decide the circuit split.
In the early hours of Sunday, March 26, 2017, Daniel Van Linn was driving by himself on a country road in Wisconsin. According to his Supreme Court petition, an oncoming car surprised Van Linn and caused him to swerve off the road and crash into a cabin. He called the police to report the accident. A sheriff’s deputy responded to the scene and found Van Linn bleeding from his head and hands. Van Linn admitted to the deputy that he’d drank “two beers,” and was taken to the hospital for his injuries.
At the hospital, medical personnel performed a “diagnostic workup” that included a blood draw. A short time later, a deputy arrived and arrested Van Linn for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. After Van Linn denied the deputy’s request for his consent to a blood draw, the deputy drew Van Linn’s blood without a warrant, revealing his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit.
At the criminal trial in state court, the judge granted Van Linn’s motion to suppress the results of the deputy’s warrantless blood draw. The judge then subsequently granted a prosecution request to subpoena the results of the hospital’s “diagnostic workup” blood draw, which showed Van Linn had been driving with an unlawfully high blood alcohol level. Van Linn pled no contest to the “operating while intoxicated” charge. He appealed and argued that allowing the prosecution to obtain and use the hospital’s blood draw against him undermined the exclusionary rule’s purpose of deterring police misconduct.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin eventually heard Van Linn’s case and affirmed the trial judge’s decision to allow the hospital blood draw evidence. The majority held the evidence was not tainted by the deputy’s warrantless blood draw, because the prosecution had reasonable grounds to suspect Van Linn’s unlawful conduct prior to anyone drawing his blood. The majority also held that suppressing the hospital blood draw “would have not further deterrent effect because it involved no police conduct at all, let alone misconduct.”
Van Linn then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case, and Wisconsin waived its right to respond. On September 14, the Court circulated the unopposed petition.
In his petition, Van Linn argues “the circuits have squarely divided over whether the ‘independent source’ inquiry is subjective or objective” leaving the rights of criminal defendants “left to the accident of geography.” Specifically, he argues that three circuits and three state supreme courts have held the “independent source” test “may be applied by looking only to the actions of a hypothetical reasonable officer.” In contrast, nine other circuits and “numerous” state courts “have held the opposite.”
The petition also makes a policy argument, that in the era of modern electronics, “where the same information can be stored in numerous separate locations, it is more essential than ever to have clarity about the scope of the independent source exception.”
The justices will now review the unopposed petition and vote on whether to hear Van Linn’s case. At least four justices must vote in favor of accepting the petition for the Supreme Court to process the case for an eventual decision on the legal issue.
Read the full petition to the Supreme Court here: Van Linn v. Wisconsin.
For over thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.