State v. Benjamin J. Dahl, 162 Idaho 541

Police went to a residence to serve a felony arrest warrant for a third person; an 8‑year‑old answered and let one officer inside after being asked to get an adult.
The mother met the officer, was told about the warrant and potential harboring liability, and agreed to let the officer "go up there and at least clear" to see if the subject was present; she escorted the officer to Dahl’s bedroom and knocked.
Dahl opened his bedroom door; the officer asked to look for the subject, and Dahl motioned for the officer to enter the bedroom.
While looking for the warrant subject, the officer observed drug paraphernalia and drugs in plain view in Dahl’s room; Dahl was arrested and charged with drug offenses.
Dahl moved to suppress, arguing the initial entry was unlawful because the child could not validly consent and that the ensuing search and evidence were tainted by that illegality.
The district court found the child’s consent to the initial entry was invalid but concluded both the mother and Dahl consented to the bedroom search; the court denied suppression. Dahl pleaded guilty conditionally and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the drugs were the product (direct or indirect) of the initial unlawful entry	State: The mother’s and Dahl’s subsequent consents severed any connection; evidence was not "fruit" of the unlawful child entry	Dahl: The discovery would not have occurred but for the unlawful entry via the child, making the evidence tainted	Court: Evidence was not the product of the initial unlawful entry; consent by mother and Dahl broke any causal link
Whether the mother and Dahl consented to the search	State: Both the mother (escorting officer upstairs and permitting entry) and Dahl (motioning officer into room) gave consent	Dahl: Any consent was absent or equivocal; child’s consent tainted all subsequent entry	Court: Preponderance of evidence shows both mother and Dahl consented to the search
Whether voluntariness of consent was preserved and adjudicated	State: Voluntariness argument was not raised below, so not preserved; district court found consent on the record	Dahl: Even if consent existed, it was not voluntary (argued on appeal)	Court: Voluntariness not preserved for appeal; district court did not rule on that issue and it cannot be raised for first time on appeal

Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (discusses the exclusionary rule and "but for" causation for derivative evidence)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine)
United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 (attenuation analysis for tainted evidence)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (burden and voluntariness standard for consent searches)
State v. Hudson, 147 Idaho 335 (entry that prevents restoration of privacy can make later consent contemporaneous with illegality)
State v. McBaine, 144 Idaho 130 (consent given after concluded unlawful entry can sever causal link)
State v. Wigginton, 142 Idaho 180 (defendant’s initial burden to show factual nexus between illegality and discovery)