"A secret or hidden court document could well prevent a lawyer from adequately preparing a defense for his client."
How later courts described this case
- "A secret or hidden court document could well prevent a lawyer from adequately preparing a defense for his client."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALMON, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent inasmuch as I feel the “fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine inappropriate to the facts in this case.
Chief Justice Burger, then a Circuit Judge, in Harried v. United States, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 330 , 389 F.2d 281 , wrote:
“. . . From its inception, the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine has not applied where the information was also obtained from an ‘independent’ source. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920). See Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 280 , 81 S.Ct. 534 , 5 L.Ed.2d 551 (1961).”
The search warrant issued by Judge Powell was supported by an affidavit alleging facts sufficient to show probable cause. Nothing on the face of the affidavit indicated a prior search. More importantly, none of the facts alleged in the affidavit were acquired by exploitation of knowledge gained as a result of the first search.
The point is that probable cause existed at the time of the Decatur search. This probable cause was established by facts totally separate and independent of the fruits of the prior search.
*64 An illegal search by police officers should not forever preclude them from later effecting a legal search where the fruits of the prior illegal search in no way contributed to the subsequent valid search. The rationale in United States v. Iannelli, 339 F.Supp. 171 , supports this view.