Also known as: dissipate the taint · dissipating the taint · dissipated the taint · attenuation doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine providing that evidence obtained after an unconstitutional search or seizure remains admissible when the causal connection between the illegality and the evidence has become sufficiently attenuated. Courts assess attenuation by weighing the time between the misconduct and the discovery of the evidence, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Federal agents forced open the door to Dorothy Daniels's bedroom and arrested her without a warrant. She made an oral statement identifying a storage locker while still under arrest and in the presence of the agents. The statement was the direct product of the illegal entry and arrest, so the connection to the misconduct remained unbroken and the taint did not dissipate.
Agents detained Dustin Donovan on a factory floor without probable cause and obtained an oral admission. Two days later Donovan returned voluntarily to the federal building with retained counsel, received full warnings, and signed a written confession identifying a storage unit. The passage of time, his release, and the presence of counsel constituted intervening circumstances that dissipated the taint from the initial detention.
Officers arrested Doris Duffy without probable cause and questioned her at the station. Less than two hours later she gave a detailed confession. The short time interval and absence of any significant intervening event left the causal chain intact, so the taint from the unlawful arrest had not dissipated.
An officer approached Destiny Davis on a public street without reasonable suspicion and ran her identification. The check revealed a valid preexisting warrant unrelated to the encounter. The officer arrested Davis on the warrant and found narcotics in her purse. Discovery of the independent warrant constituted an intervening circumstance that dissipated the taint of the unlawful stop.
Agents conducted an unlawful search of Diane Dawson's office and learned the identity of a potential witness. Weeks later the witness voluntarily testified before a grand jury after being subpoenaed through ordinary investigative channels. The substantial time gap and the witness's independent decision to cooperate dissipated any taint from the original search.
Officers arrested Derek Douglas in his home without a warrant and took him to the station. He gave a statement at the station that was later used against him. Because the statement was obtained at the station rather than in the home, the connection to the warrantless entry had become attenuated and the taint dissipated.
Courts weigh three primary factors: the temporal proximity between the illegality and the discovery of the evidence, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. Purposeful or flagrant misconduct weighs heavily against a finding of attenuation.
Supporting sources
A valid preexisting warrant that is unconnected to the stop constitutes a strong intervening circumstance. When combined with at most negligent police conduct and the absence of purposeful or flagrant misconduct, the warrant typically dissipates the taint and renders evidence seized during the subsequent lawful arrest admissible.
…Dunaway v. New York , 442 U. S. 200, 217-218 (1979); United States v. Ceccolini, supra , at 279.[^maj-7] In short, the "dissipation of the taint" concept that the Court has applied in deciding whether exclusion is appropriate in a particular case "attempts to mark the point at which the detrimental consequences of illegal police…
…custody when he made the statement. The connection between the illegal arrest and the statement had become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint. The statement was therefore admissible. IV We turn finally to the heroin found in Yee's house. The Court of Appeals held that the heroin was admissible because it was not the fruit…
…between the lawless conduct of the police and the discovery of the challenged evidence has "become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint." ' " 435 U. S., at 273-274. It is also suprising to learn that the issues in Stone v. Powell are "distinct" from the Fourth Amendment. [^maj-5]: Consider the full context of the…
…cost on the legitimate demands of law enforcement than can be justified by the rule’s deterrent purposes. The notion of the “dissipation of the taint
…must outweigh its substantial social costs. Hudson v. Michigan , 547 U. S. 586, 591 (2006). We have previously applied the attenuation doctrine
Supporting sources
A significant time gap between the illegality and the discovery of evidence supports attenuation because it suggests the coercive impact of the misconduct has dissipated. Even a two-day interval can favor admissibility when accompanied by intervening circumstances such as release from custody and voluntary return with counsel.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a witness's identity is discovered through an illegal search but the witness later testifies voluntarily after a substantial time gap and through independent investigative channels, the connection to the original illegality becomes sufficiently attenuated for the testimony to be admissible.
No. A statement obtained at the station after a warrantless home arrest is sufficiently attenuated from the illegal entry because the location and circumstances of the questioning break the direct causal chain, rendering the statement admissible.