Which factor is NOT considered in the attenuation doctrine?

The attenuation doctrine addresses the circumstances under which evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure may still be admissible in court if certain intervening factors diminish the connection between the misconduct and the evidence. In evaluating whether evidence is subject to exclusion based on the attenuation doctrine, courts typically consider several key factors.

The timing between the illegal contact and the discovery of an intervening factor is critical because a longer passage of time may suggest that the connection between the initial misconduct and the evidence has weakened. The presence of a lawful intervening factor is also considered, as this can help demonstrate that the evidence was obtained through legitimate means that break the chain of illegality. Official misconduct by an officer or agency reflects on the reliability of the actions taken and helps determine if the evidence is still tainted by prior illegality.

In contrast, reasonable suspicion based on witness testimony does not fit into the attenuation doctrine's framework, as it pertains to the standard of belief an officer must possess to justify a stop or search rather than analyzing the causal relationship between the illegal action and the evidence obtained thereafter. Thus, it is not a factor traditionally considered under the attenuation doctrine.