Once a Fourth Amendment violation is established, does the defendant have the burden to prove the violation was the "but for" cause of the subsequent discovery of contraband or is it the prosecution's burden to prove the admissibility of evidence discovered after illegal police activity? There is a circuit split on this issue, which this Court should resolve to prevent unfair suppression outcomes that turn on the location where they arise.

Does the defendant have the burden to prove the violation was the 'but for' cause of the subsequent discovery of contraband or is it the prosecution's burden to prove the admissibility of evidence discovered after illegal police activity?