CFE Question of the Day: Independent Source Doctrine

Quiz Yazan Ibrahim
CFE 2026 Master Prep Bundle with Fraud Exam Books, Digital Tablet, and Smartwatch.

independent source doctrine — CFE Question of the Day: Independent Source Doctrine

independent source doctrine: daily practice for the Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) exam — domain: Law.

Question

An internal auditor at a mid-size company surreptitiously opens an employee's locked file cabinet without a warrant and finds invoices suggesting fraudulent billing. The auditor provides photocopies to local police. Separately, police obtain independent bank records that justify a judge issuing a valid search warrant for the employee’s office; during the warranted search officers seize the same invoices. Which legal doctrine most likely supports admitting the invoices at criminal trial despite the auditor’s initial unlawful search?

  • A. Independent source doctrine — evidence obtained during a lawful, separate search is admissible if it originated from information wholly unconnected to the illegal search.
  • B. Inevitable discovery doctrine — evidence admitted because the prosecution would have discovered it through routine administrative procedures absent the unlawful search.
  • C. Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine — evidence is admissible because the original illegal search was performed by a private actor rather than law enforcement.
  • D. Attenuation doctrine — evidence is admissible because the connection between the private unlawful search and the later seizure is remote and thus purged of taint.
Show the answer and explanation

Correct answer: A. Independent source doctrine — evidence obtained during a lawful, separate search is admissible if it originated from information wholly unconnected to the illegal search.

The independent source doctrine is correct: when law enforcement obtains the same evidence through a lawful search based on information independent of the illegal search, that subsequent seizure is admissible. Inevitable discovery is wrong because it requires proof the evidence would have been discovered inevitably by lawful means, not merely that an independent basis existed. Fruit of the poisonous tree is wrong because it generally excludes derivative evidence obtained by the government; a private actor’s unlawful search may still taint police conduct, so the doctrine would bar, not admit, evidence unless an exception applies. Attenuation is wrong because it addresses whether the causal link to the illegality is sufficiently remote; here the proper doctrine is an independent, lawful source of the evidence.

Want more practice?

Prepare for the Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) exam with New Material: CFE 2026 Prep Bundle.