971 N.W.2d 478
Wis.2022Background
- Early-morning one-car crash; Van Linn taken to hospital where hospital medical staff drew blood for treatment (3:55 a.m.) showing BAC 0.226.
- Deputy later arrested Van Linn, who refused a warrantless police blood draw; deputy nevertheless directed a warrantless draw (~4:15 a.m.) that tested at BAC 0.205.
- Circuit court suppressed the deputy's warrantless blood test as a Fourth Amendment violation (no exigency).
- Months later the State subpoenaed the hospital records (which contained the earlier diagnostic blood result) and obtained the hospital BAC. Van Linn moved to suppress those hospital results as fruit of the unlawful police draw.
- The court of appeals and the Supreme Court held the hospital result admissible under the independent-source doctrine because the hospital draw was legally independent and the State had independent probable cause to seek the records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Van Linn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of hospital blood results after an unlawful police blood draw | Hospital sample admissible under independent-source: it was taken for medical purposes, independent of police, and the State had independent probable cause | Hospital result is fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed because the State subpoenaed hospital records after learning BAC from unlawful draw | Admissible: independent-source doctrine applies; hospital blood untainted and subpoena not prompted by unlawful draw |
| Whether the State's subpoena was "prompted by" the unlawful draw | Subpoena was supported by independent probable cause (scene observations, odor, admission, reduced BAC limit) and would have been sought regardless of the unlawful sample | The subpoena was prompted by knowing the unlawful sample proved BAC over the limit; but for the unlawful draw and its suppression, State would not have subpoenaed | Not prompted: facts at the scene gave independent grounds; presenting the hospital result did not exploit the unlawful draw |
| Whether suppressing hospital result would further deterrence goals of exclusionary rule | Suppression of deputy's result already remedied police misconduct; excluding hospital sample would not deter police and would place State in a worse position | Suppression is necessary to deter police misconduct and to prevent law enforcement from treating subpoenas as an after-the-fact insurance policy | No additional deterrence: exclusion of hospital sample would not further deter and would improperly penalize the State for an independently created, nonpolice record |
Key Cases Cited
- Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (creates the principle against "indirect" use of illegally obtained evidence)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (independent-source doctrine; evidence rediscovered by lawful means admissible when search for warrant not prompted by illegal entry)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (but-for causation is insufficient; asks whether government "exploited" illegal conduct)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (distinguishes police conduct from independently obtained evidence)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (no per se exigency for blood draws; case-by-case analysis)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (exclusionary rule applies only where meaningful deterrence is likely)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (real deterrent value required for exclusion)
- Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (exclusionary rule aims to deter unlawful police conduct)
- United States v. Pike, 523 F.2d 734 (example that later lawful rediscovery does not require exclusion when investigation already focused independently)