吃瓜大本营

The 鈥渆xclusionary rule鈥� prohibits the State from using unlawfully obtained evidence to prosecute someone, serving as a critical tool for promoting law enforcement compliance with the Constitution. The 鈥渋ndependent source鈥� doctrine is a narrow exception to that exclusionary rule, which applies only when law enforcement acquired evidence through means that were truly 鈥渋ndependent鈥� of any prior unlawful search or seizure.

In 2018, a police officer was dispatched to investigate an unknown individual taking recordings with a cellphone through the bedroom window of a female resident. The police officer encountered Mr. Tatum in the vicinity of the complainant鈥檚 residence and asked to see the last picture on his phone. After some discussion, the officer grabbed the phone, looked at it, and saw a video of the female resident without a shirt on. This was an unconstitutional, warrantless search.

The police then described the incriminating evidence from this illegal search in an application for a warrant to again search that very same phone. A magistrate issued the warrant, the police conducted the search, and a court allowed the evidence in Mr. Tatum鈥檚 subsequent trial on 鈥減eeping Tom鈥� charges. Mr. Tatum was convicted, and he appealed.

The Georgia Court of Appeals held that the trial court had properly admitted evidence during the warranted search under the independent source doctrine. The Court of Appeals reasoned that, despite the State鈥檚 reliance on unlawfully obtained evidence, the second search was valid because if, hypothetically, the illegal evidence had been 鈥渆xcised鈥� from the warrant application, the remaining evidence would have established probable cause.

The Georgia Supreme Court has taken the case, and the ACLU of Georgia and the ACLU filed an amicus brief arguing that the independent source doctrine does not apply in Mr. Tatum鈥檚 case. The brief argues that the independent source doctrine applies only when law enforcement obtained the evidence by means that were 鈥済enuinely independent鈥� from the illegal search. That standard requires the State to demonstrate that an illegal search or seizure did not have 鈥渁ny effect鈥濃�攁ny鈥攊n producing a warrant. The state therefore must prove that information obtained during an illegal search neither prompted law enforcement to seek a warrant nor was presented to the magistrate and affected the magistrate鈥檚 decision to issue a warrant. That is not what happened in Mr. Tatum鈥檚 case. The brief also explains that allowing evidence from the tainted warrant to be used to convict would undermine the respect for Constitutional rights by encouraging officers to conduct unlawful searches and then seek warrants only if their illegal searches turn up evidence.

In June 2024, the Court vacated Tatum鈥檚 conviction and remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether the state鈥檚 decision to seek the search warrant was 鈥減rompted鈥� by the prior unlawful search. The opinion distinguishes and rejects the Court鈥檚 prior ruling in Brundige for reasons that track from SSCI's amicus brief.