properly cured by a tort. This statement does not alter the rule that when there is a sufficiently causal relationship between property destruction and the fruits of a search, those fruits are suppressed. See United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, at 72 n. 3, 118 S.Ct. 992, 140 L.Ed.2d 191 (1998) (“Because we conclude that there was no Fourth Amendment violation, we need not decide whether, for example, there was sufficient causal relationship between the breaking of the window and the discovery of the guns to warrant suppression of the evidence.”) (citing Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (creating the independent source doctrine as a limitation on the exclusionary rule) and Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) (<HOLDING>)). Finally, the majority finds justification
holding that evidence that would normally be admissible may be excluded if the evidence was a direct or indirect product of an unlawful search holding all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the constitution is by that same authority inadmissible in a state court holding that consensual suspicionless searches of government employees personal belongings in the workplace were searches even though refusal to consent carried no criminal penalty and the searches were not for law enforcement purposes holding that evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures is inadmissible in state court holding that direct and indirect evidence from unlawful searches is inadmissible