Daniel J. Van Linn v. Wisconsin

This case presents a clear and intractable conflict regarding an important exception to the exclusionary rule. In Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988), this Court held that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment can still be admitted and used against a criminal defendant if the evidence would have been gained lawfully through an “independent source.” In so holding, this Court focused on what would have happened if the unlawful search never occurred. After Murray, the circuits have squarely divided over whether the “independent source” inquiry is subjective or objective. In the majority of jurisdictions the inquiry is subjective: it asks whether the actual state officials involved in the case would have gotten the evidence in a lawful way had the unlawful search never happened. In three federal circuits and three states, however, the inquiry is objective: asking only whether a reasonable official would have gotten the evidence in a lawful way had the unlawful search never happened. In the case below, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin joined the small minority of courts that apply the objective approach. That holding was outcome-determinative, and this case is a perfect vehicle for resolving the widespread disagreement over this important question. The question presented is: Whether a court seeking to determine if a source of evidence is “genuinely independent” for purposes of the “independent source” exception to the exclusionary rule must ask whether the actual officers involved would have sought the relevant evidence had the unlawful search never taken place or instead may ask only whether a hypothetical reasonable officer would have sought the relevant evidence had the unlawful search never taken place. (i)