What is the test for exclusion of evidence obtained as a direct result of an unconstitutional search or seizure?

"Evidence obtained as a direct result of an unconstitutional search or seizure is plainly subject to exclusion. The question to be resolved when it is claimed that evidence subsequently obtained is 'tainted' or is 'fruit' of a prior illegality is whether the challenged evidence was '"come at by exploitation of [the initial] illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint."' [ ] It has been well established for more than 60 years that evidence is not to be excluded if the connection between the illegal police conduct and the discovery and seizure of the evidence is 'so attenuated as to dissipate the taint'. . . . It is not to be excluded, for example, if police had an 'independent source' for discovery of the evidence." (Segura v. United States (1984) 468 U.S. 796, 804-805.) There was no evidence connecting defendant's arrest and the taking of the buccal swab with the unlawful extension of defendant's detention to obtain his DNA sample by using a ruse to get him to blow into a PAS device despite a complete lack of evidence indicating defendant was impaired at the time.

"'As for secondary evidence, the defendant bears the burden of making a prima facie case that such evidence was "tainted" byi.e., causally linked tothe primary illegality.' [Citation.] To do this, the defendant 'must show more than that the challenged evidence "would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police"; rather, [the defendant] must establish that it "'has been come at by exploitation of that illegality . . . .'"' [Citation.]" (People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 760, overruled on another ground in People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 390, fn. 2.) The burden then shifts to the prosecution to prove the secondary evidence is not tainted by the prior illegality. (Maldonado v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1112, 1138 [defendant

Page 17