{"id":59192,"date":"2024-10-26T09:30:35","date_gmt":"2024-10-26T14:30:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=59192"},"modified":"2024-10-26T10:47:51","modified_gmt":"2024-10-26T15:47:51","slug":"wa-state-exclusionary-rule-is-catergorical-and-a-new-crime-alone-isnt-enough-for-attenuation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=59192","title":{"rendered":"WA state exclusionary rule is categorical, and a new crime alone isn’t enough for attenuation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Washington State constitutional exclusionary rule is categorical and a privacy violation almost always results in exclusion. They had already rejected the good faith exception under state law. Here, it was attenuation, and a new crime alone isn\u2019t enough. State v. McGee<\/a>, 2024 Wash. LEXIS 541 (Oct. 24, 2024):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\u00b621 Our state\u2019s attenuation doctrine is narrowly construed consistent with the strong privacy protections in article I, section 7. Whereas federal courts \u201c\u2018attempt[ ] to mark the point at which the detrimental consequences of illegal police action become so attenuated that the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule no longer justifies its cost,\u2019\u201d we require the State to prove a superseding cause truly severed the chain of causation. Mayfield, 192 Wn.2d at 892-93 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 609, 95 S. Ct. 2254, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring in part)). In defining \u201csuperseding cause,\u201d we have imported the meaning given to that phrase in tort law\u2014an \u201cunforeseeable intervening circumstance[ ] [that] genuinely sever[s] the chain of causation between official misconduct and the discovery of evidence,\u201d giving law enforcement a new, legal basis upon which to conduct their search or seizure. Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b622 The question presented here concerns how to apply this test in the wake of a new, independent criminal act. The State asks us to hold that the attenuating or superseding event may occur after the discovery of the evidence, so that it relates to the use of the evidence in a warrant application as part of a new investigation. McGee and amicus argue allowing such use would encourage illegal searches and would disproportionately harm BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) individuals, who experience police searches and seizures at disproportionately higher rates than white individuals compared to their relative shares of the population. Br. of Amici Curiae WACDL (Wash. Ass\u2019n of Crim. Def. Lawyers) et al. as Amici Curiae at 10-16 (Br. of Amici); Chong Yim v. City of Seattle, 63 F.4th 783, 788 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 693, 217 L. Ed. 2d 388 (2024)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b623 We agree with the Court of Appeals that the State\u2019s argument is inconsistent with our attenuation doctrine and poses too great a risk to individual privacy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Washington State constitutional exclusionary rule is categorical and a privacy violation almost always results in exclusion. They had already rejected the good faith exception under state law. Here, it was attenuation, and a new crime alone isn\u2019t enough. State … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[75,14,53],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59192","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-attenuation","category-exclusionary-rule","category-state-constitution"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59192","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=59192"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59192\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":59200,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59192\/revisions\/59200"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=59192"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=59192"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=59192"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}