## Facts

- Federal and state agents suspected Andrés Segura and Luz Marina Colón of distributing cocaine from their apartment based on informant information and surveillance.
- Agents observed Colón deliver a bulky package to Parra in a parking lot while Segura and another individual were in a nearby restaurant.
- Agents later stopped Parra and the other individual, found cocaine, and arrested them.
- After receiving Miranda warnings, the other arrestee stated he purchased the cocaine from Segura and that Colón delivered it.
- An Assistant U.S. Attorney authorized arrests and advised that a search warrant likely could not be obtained until the next day, instructing agents to secure the premises to prevent destruction of evidence.
- Agents arrested Segura in the building lobby, took him upstairs, and entered the apartment when Colón opened the door, without consent and without a warrant.
- Agents conducted a limited security check and observed drug paraphernalia in plain view; Colón was arrested.
- Agents remained in the apartment to secure it while awaiting a warrant; due to administrative delay, the warrant issued about 19 hours after entry.
- Executing the warrant, agents seized cocaine and narcotics records, along with items earlier observed during the initial entry.

## Issues

1. Whether the exclusionary rule requires suppression of evidence first seized under a valid search warrant when officers previously made an unlawful, warrantless entry into the premises.
2. Whether the 19-hour securing of the apartment while awaiting a warrant was an unreasonable seizure requiring suppression of evidence later found under the warrant.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the admissibility of evidence first discovered and seized during the search conducted under the valid warrant.
- The Court reasoned that the warrant was based on information obtained before, and independent of, the illegal entry; the later-seized evidence was not the product of the illegality.
- The Court held that the 19-hour securing of the apartment did not require suppression of evidence discovered under the warrant.
- Items observed in plain view during the initial unlawful entry were suppressible, but that illegality did not taint evidence later obtained for the first time under the warrant.

## Legal Principles

- The exclusionary rule bars not only evidence directly obtained through a Fourth Amendment violation but also derivative evidence, unless the challenged evidence was acquired from a genuinely independent source.
- Under the independent source doctrine, evidence seized pursuant to a valid warrant is admissible when the warrant and supporting probable-cause showing are wholly independent of prior unlawful police conduct.
- A temporary seizure of premises to preserve the status quo while officers diligently seek a warrant, supported by probable cause, does not automatically require suppression of evidence later seized under the warrant.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a prior illegal entry into a residence does not compel suppression of evidence first seized under a later, valid warrant when the warrant is supported by information independent of the entry, and that securing the premises while awaiting the warrant did not itself justify excluding the warrant-based evidence.


Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984)