CA4: New crime after illegal discovery of gun did not break the causal chain; suppression properly granted

Where the government’s unlawful stop led to the finding of a gun, defendant’s act in assaulting the officer trying to flee after the gun was found did not purge the taint and was still a “fruit of the poisonous tree.” This is not a situation where a new crime purges the taint of an unlawful arrest because the new crime occurred after the unlawful search. United States v. Sprinkle, 106 F.3d 613 (4th Cir. 1997), is distinguished. United States v. Gaines, 668 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2012):

We agree with Gaines that a proper reading of Sprinkle does not support the Government’s position. In that case, the contested evidence (the firearm) was only discovered after the defendant engaged in illegal activity subsequent to an earlier unlawful stop. See id. at 619 (“[w]hen Sprinkle drew and fired his gun at the officer, he committed a new crime that was distinct from any crime he might have been suspected of at the time of the initial stop.”). The illegal act in Sprinkle broke the causal chain between the unlawful stop and the discovery of the firearm. By contrast, in this case, the causal chain remains intact. Gaines’ subsequent criminal conduct cannot constitute an intervening event because it took place after the discovery of the firearm.

The Government, however, places much emphasis on our statement in Sprinkle that “[b]ecause the arrest for the new, distinct crime is lawful, evidence seized in a search incident to that lawful arrest is admissible.” Id. at 619. Because the firearm was not physically seized until after Gaines struck the officers, the Government argues, it may be admitted as properly seized pursuant to a lawful arrest.

This argument, though, fails to account for the fact that the gun was discovered prior to Gaines’ acts of assault. Although the Government would have us hold that the seizure of the firearm, rather than its discovery by police, is the critical act for assessing whether an intervening event has taken place, that position lacks support in law. In fact, other than the aforementioned language in Sprinkle, the Government has not cited any case for the proposition that the seizure of the evidence is legally more significant than the discovery of the evidence when the two acts do not coincide.

He could be prosecuted for the new crime, but it still doesn’t break the causal chain from the government’s illegal search.