People v. Burr, 69 N.Y.2d 319 (1987)
Evidence obtained pursuant to a valid search warrant is admissible even if preceded by an illegal search, provided the warrant was supported by an independent source of probable cause, untainted by the initial illegality, and the illegal search was not conducted to confirm suspicions that formed the basis for obtaining the warrant.
Summary
Burr was convicted of murder. Prior to obtaining a search warrant, police illegally searched Burr’s apartment after arresting him. The Court of Appeals held that while a “confirmatory search” may require suppression of evidence, the evidence seized pursuant to a valid search warrant was admissible because the warrant was based on probable cause from an independent source (a witness statement) and was untainted by the prior illegal search. The court emphasized that the defendant did not argue that the initial search was done to confirm the witness’s information and to obtain a warrant.
Facts
Timothy Murray told police he witnessed Burr murder John Borek in Burr’s apartment. Murray said Burr stabbed Borek with a knife, tied him with an extension cord, and dumped the body in a manhole, disposing of clothing and a knife in a reservoir. Murray led police to the manhole and reservoir where the body and clothing were found. Murray stated that Burr said he was going to Houston, Texas.
Procedural History
Burr was convicted of murder after a jury trial. The trial court suppressed items taken before the warrant issued but admitted items seized during the warrant execution. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding exigent circumstances justified the warrantless arrest and that the warrant was not tainted by any prior illegality. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issue(s)
Whether evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant should be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree” if the warrant was preceded by an illegal search of the same premises.
Holding
No, because the warrant was supported by an independent source of probable cause, untainted by the prior illegal search, and the defendant failed to establish the illegal search was a confirmatory search used to obtain the warrant.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized the warrant requirement, stating it is “designed to interpose the detached and independent judgment of a neutral Magistrate between the interested viewpoint of those engaged in ferreting out crime and potential encroachments on the sanctity and privacy of the individual.”
The court acknowledged that a confirmatory search (one conducted without a warrant to confirm suspicions before obtaining a warrant) would violate the warrant requirement. The court stated, “[E]very time [a police officer] fails to find the suspected evidence, he has also invaded the privacy of a citizen innocent of any wrongdoing.”
However, the court stated that the presence of an independent source for a warrant does not automatically immunize a prior warrantless search. Similarly, the existence of a prior illegal search does not automatically require suppression of evidence later seized pursuant to warrant.
The exclusionary rule applies when the prosecution has exploited or benefited from its illegal conduct, creating a connection between the constitutional violation and the derivative evidence. Such exploitation could occur if the police used the illegal search to assure themselves there was cause to obtain a warrant.
Here, Burr did not argue that the initial search was a confirmatory search to verify Murray’s statement and obtain a warrant. The Court noted support in the record suggesting all evidence seized pursuant to the warrant had been observed in plain view during the lawful arrest, negating the need for a confirmatory search. Thus, because the defendant did not argue that the search was confirmatory and the warrant was based on an independent source, the evidence was admissible.