CA9: Where first meeting violated 4A, second meeting 8 mo later tied to first was not attenuated

By the court: “The panel explained that when a confession results from certain types of Fourth Amendment violations, the government must go beyond proving that the confession was voluntary—it must also show a sufficient break in events to undermine the inference that the confession was caused by the Fourth Amendment violation. After considering together the relevant factors set forth in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975), the panel was persuaded that the second encounter, introduced as a ‘follow up’ to the first, was directly linked to the original illegalities. The panel explained that although significant time had passed, and the record does not show that the officers’ conduct was purposeful or flagrant, the eight-month time period was collapsed by the agent opening the conversation by stating that he was following up on the original investigation. Without other intervening circumstances that act to separate the incidents, the panel concluded that the government cannot carry its burden of proving that the defendant’s statements were sufficiently attenuated from the illegal detention and seizure eight months prior.” United States v. Bocharnikov, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23552 (9th Cir. July 27, 2020).