Evidence discovered after unlawful search will be suppressed as fruit of poisonous tree only if unlawful search is “but-for” cause of discovery

SEARCH & SEIZURE United States v. Chavira, No. 05-3455, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Nov. 9, 2006)(Kansas). Appeal of conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 812 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. HELD: (1) Despite arrival of second police officer on scene of traffic stop and despite continued questioning by first police officer after issuing warning citation and returning defendant’s driver’s license, fact that defendant’s path to his vehicle was unobstructed and officer was separated from him by open patrol car door, meant that defendant did not have objectively reasonable belief he was not free to leave. Accordingly, defendant’s consent to search vehicle was not product of unlawful detention. (2) Police officer’s unlawful inspection of VIN on vehicle’s doorjamb during course of routine traffic stop does not necessarily require suppression of later-seized drug evidence as fruit of poisonous tree. Evidence will not be suppressed as fruit of poisonous tree unless unlawful search is “at least” the “but-for” cause of its discovery. To establish requisite “but-for” nexus, defendant bears burden of showing that evidence sought to be suppressed would not have come to light “but for” government’s unconstitutional conduct. In this instance, during lawful stop and in midst of lawful VIN check on vehicle dash, officer opened door of defendant’s truck without consent and checked VIN on doorjamb. Doorjamb inspection lasted fourteen seconds, uncovered no contraband and had no connection to defendant’s later consent to search that ultimately led to cocaine being discovered in vehicle’s fuel tank. Read the opinion here.