stating that although the short time lapse between the defendant's illegal arrest and his live-in girlfriend's consent to search their home suggests exploitation, the fact that the girlfriend did not know that the defendant had been illegally arrested reduced the significance of close temporal proximity
How later courts described this case
- stating that although the short time lapse between the defendant's illegal arrest and his live-in girlfriend's consent to search their home suggests exploitation, the fact that the girlfriend did not know that the defendant had been illegally arrested reduced the significance of close temporal proximity
- clarifying that evidence obtained by purported consent should be held admissible only if it is determined that the consent was both voluntary and not an exploitation of the prior illegality
- holding that defendant’s girlfriend consented to search, but no mention of claim under Iowa Constitution
- noting, as one factor weighing in favor of voluntariness, that a single officer requested consent to search and explained a consent form while other officers waited outside the room
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by United States v. Cordero-Rosario, 252 F. Supp. 3d 79 (2017)
Though the government awards Lane much weight, the facts are distinguishable.
The opinion
TERNUS, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I believe the drugs found in Lane’s apartment must be suppressed under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. Contrary to the conclusion of the plurality, the prior illegal entry into and search of the garage “provide[d] a significant lead in terms of indicating what other evidence [the police] ought to seek [and] where they ought to seek it.” 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.2(d), at 88 (4th ed.2004). A common sense analysis of the facts inevitably leads to the conclusion that law enforcement authorities used information they obtained in the illegal garage search to focus their attention on Lane’s residence in an effort to discover additional illegal substances. The trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion to suppress. Accordingly, I would reverse the defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.