Search warrant after invalid subpoena for BAC results was valid and independent source

Search warrant after an invalid subpoena for BAC results was an independent source. Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 2008 PA Super 101, 948 A.2d 875 (2008):

[*P18] Therefore, based upon our review of the record, we conclude that Sergeant Adams’ decision to seek a search warrant was premised only upon information that had been observed legally by his colleagues on the night of the arrest and recorded in their reports and not based upon illegally-obtained information. Murray, 487 U.S. at 542 (reviewing court must consider whether subsequent police decision to obtain warrant was based on information observed by police misconduct). It is true that Sergeant Adams’ investigation retraced the steps of the previous investigation, but we decline the invitation to penalize Sergeant Adams for the comprehensiveness of the previous investigation, especially here, where there was nothing of substance added to his investigation or the search warrant application by virtue of the illegally-obtained BAC results. Ruey, 854 A.2d at 571. Likewise, it is evident from the search warrant application that no mention was made of the illegally-obtained BAC results to the magisterial district judge. Id., 854 A.2d at 565; see also Murray, 487 U.S. at 542.

Officer saw people in a building at 2 a.m., and he initiated a burglary investigation. He entered and talked to the people inside. The officer could extend the initial stop. State v. Sawyer, 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 556 (May 9, 2008).*

Telephonic search warrant complied with the duplicate that had been made according to the recording of the telephone call. State v. Jennings, 220 Ore. App. 1, 184 P.3d 1200 (2008):

Here, by contrast, the duplicate original warrant was facially valid, and the state relies on its validity, not on the validity of the preceding oral recital by the judge who considered and granted the telephonic warrant request. Moreover, as discussed, defendant’s effort to undermine the validity of the duplicate original warrant fails because the judge’s statement to the officer, when viewed in a common-sense, nontechnical way, evinced an intention to authorize the preparation and execution of a search-and-seize warrant.