860 N.W.2d 251
S.D.2015Background
- Early morning Nov. 21, 2012, Rosales set fire to two unoccupied vehicles owned by Faehnrich and Rolfe; fire spread and damaged a nearby garage.
- Investigation found flammable liquid ignited on the vehicles; officers arrested Rosales and impounded his van and seized two cell phones.
- An investigator removed the phones’ batteries to record serial numbers; those serial numbers were used in an affidavit seeking a warrant to search the phones, the van, and Rosales.
- A warrant search of the van recovered lighters, matches, a gas can, marijuana, and TFMPP (a Schedule I controlled substance); Rosales was indicted on reckless burning (garage), two counts of intentional damage to property (the vehicles), and two drug-possession counts.
- Jury convicted on all counts; Rosales appealed, arguing (1) the intentional-damage statute is inapplicable when damage is caused by fire (i.e., it is displaced by arson/reckless burning), and (2) recording phone serial numbers was an illegal search that tainted the warrant and subsequent van search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 22-34-1 (intentional damage to property) applies when damage is caused by fire | Rosales: statute excludes intentional-damage liability if damage was accomplished by arson or reckless burning; thus charges for intentional damage to the vehicles must be dismissed because the vehicles were burned | State: exclusion only requires election between arson/reckless burning and intentional-damage prosecutions; statutes are not mutually exclusive in this factual setting | Reversed and remanded on intentional-damage counts. Court held the exclusion applies if the acts meet arson/reckless-burning elements; here first-degree arson/reckless burning elements not met, but second-degree arson (intent to destroy an unoccupied structure) might apply. Jury must decide whether Rosales intended to destroy (second-degree arson) or only to injure/damage (intentional damage) the vehicles |
| Whether recording phone serial numbers was an illegal search that tainted the warrant and required suppression of van evidence | Rosales: recording batteries/serials was an illegal search; any evidence obtained via the warrant (lighters, gas can, drugs) is fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed | State: defendant failed to show a factual nexus or that the phone-search was the but-for cause of discovering the van evidence | Affirmed as to suppression. Court held Rosales failed to establish the required factual nexus and but-for causation; attenuation doctrine likewise supports denying suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (illegal-search causation and exclusionary-rule principles)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree and causal nexus limits on suppression)
- Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (defendant bears burden to show taint between alleged illegality and challenged evidence)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (attenuation and limits on exclusion despite but-for causation)
- United States v. Marasco, 487 F.3d 543 (burden to establish factual nexus between Fourth Amendment violation and evidence)
- State v. Heney, 839 N.W.2d 558 (S.D. 2013) (suppression requires factual nexus and but-for causation)
- State v. Boll, 651 N.W.2d 710 (S.D. 2002) (analysis whether challenged evidence was obtained by exploitation of the illegality or purged of primary taint)