Under Segura v. U.S., if the prosecution can show that illegally obtained evidence was also derived from a separate independent source, what is the effect on the exclusionary rule?

Under Segura v. U.S., if the prosecution can show that illegally obtained evidence was also derived from a separate independent source, what is the effect on the exclusionary rule?

• A. The exclusionary rule always applies
• B. The exclusionary rule applies to the independent source as well
• C. The exclusionary rule is not affected
• D. The exclusionary rule does not apply to the illegally obtained evidence if there is an independent source

Answer: (D)

The key idea is how the exclusionary rule interacts with independent sources. Segura v. United States holds that if the prosecution can show the evidence was also discovered through a separate, independent source, the taint from the illegal action does not bar the admissibility of the evidence obtained via that independent source. In other words, the existence of an independent source breaks the chain of illegality, so the evidence coming from that source can be used in court even though part of the investigation began unlawfully. That’s why the correct choice says the exclusionary rule does not apply to the illegally obtained evidence if there is an independent source—the independent source provides a legitimate, untainted pathway to obtain the same evidence, making it admissible. The other options imply the rule always applies, or that the independent-source evidence is itself suppressed or that nothing changes, which runs counter to the independent source doctrine.

The key idea is how the exclusionary rule interacts with independent sources. Segura v. United States holds that if the prosecution can show the evidence was also discovered through a separate, independent source, the taint from the illegal action does not bar the admissibility of the evidence obtained via that independent source. In other words, the existence of an independent source breaks the chain of illegality, so the evidence coming from that source can be used in court even though part of the investigation began unlawfully.

That’s why the correct choice says the exclusionary rule does not apply to the illegally obtained evidence if there is an independent source—the independent source provides a legitimate, untainted pathway to obtain the same evidence, making it admissible. The other options imply the rule always applies, or that the independent-source evidence is itself suppressed or that nothing changes, which runs counter to the independent source doctrine.