Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Murray v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1988 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth Amendmentexclusionary ruleindependent source doctrineindependent sourceexclusionary rulefruit of the poisonous treesearch warrant

Facts

Federal agents surveilling Murray and Carter saw them enter a South Boston warehouse with vehicles and later observed that seized vehicles contained marijuana. Agents then forced entry into the warehouse, found it unoccupied, and observed in plain view numerous burlap-wrapped bales later found to contain marijuana. The agents left, kept the warehouse under surveillance, and later obtained a search warrant without mentioning the prior entry or relying on observations made during it. After the warrant issued about eight hours later, they reentered and seized 270 bales of marijuana and notebooks listing customers.

Issue

Whether the independent source doctrine permits admission of evidence seized under a later search warrant when the same evidence had already been observed in plain view during an earlier unlawful entry. More specifically, whether such evidence is admissible if the later warrant-authorized search was genuinely independent of the initial illegality.

Rule

Evidence initially discovered during an unlawful search may still be admitted if later obtained through a genuinely independent lawful source. A warrant-authorized search is not a genuinely independent source if the agents' decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what they saw during the initial entry, or if information obtained during that entry was presented to the magistrate and affected the decision to issue the warrant.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Detectives in Phoenix had been investigating Leo Martin for fencing stolen medical equipment. Before any warrant application was prepared, two officers unlawfully opened his rented storage unit, saw several hospital monitors, left, and then immediately decided to apply for a warrant using only prior surveillance logs and witness interviews, omitting any mention of the entry.

If Leo moves to suppress the monitors seized during the later warrant search, what is the best argument for suppression?

Explanation. A later warrant search is not a genuinely independent source if the officers' decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what they observed during the unlawful entry. It is not enough that the affidavit omitted tainted facts. The doctrine can apply to tangible evidence first seen unlawfully, but only if the later lawful search is genuinely independent.