Is it error to apply the attenuation test articulated in Brown v. Illinois to determine whether evidence discovered during an illegal search should be suppressed?

QUESTION PRESENTED The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures protects persons in their homes against unwarranted intrusions. The exclusionary rule protects the Fourth Amendment guarantees by prohibiting the introduction of both primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure as well as “evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality,” the so-called “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 804 (1984). The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter future misconduct and this Court has recognized exceptions where exclusion does not further the goal of deterrence. The Supreme Court has articulated an exception to the exclusionary rule for cases where an arrest or search involved a Fourth Amendment violation but the connection between the illegal conduct and the subsequent discovery of evidence became so attenuated the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule no longer justified its cost. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1975). In applying the “attenuation exception,” Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04 (1975), identified a three-factor test. More recently, Utah v. Strieff clarified that the “attenuation doctrine” applies where the connection between the government’s unlawful act and the discovery of evidence is remote or has been interrupted by intervening circumstances. 579 U.S. 232, 238 (2016). 1) Is it error to apply the attenuation test articulated in Brown v. Illinois to determine whether evidence discovered during an illegal search should be suppressed? More specifically, where officers conduct an initial unconstitutional search discovering incriminating evidence, and subsequently obtain voluntary consent to perform a second search, is the admissibility of the evidence discovered in the initial search properly analyzed under the attenuation doctrine? i