431

BRENNAN, J., dissenting

Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 487 (1963). In particular, the Court concludes that unconstitutionally obtained evidence may be admitted at trial if it inevitably would have been discovered in the same condition by an independent line of investigation that was already being pursued when the constitutional violation occurred. As has every Federal Court of Appeals previously addressing this issue, see ante, at 440-441, n. 2, I agree that in these circumstances the "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule is consistent with the requirements of the Constitution.

In its zealous efforts to emasculate the exclusionary rule, however, the Court loses sight of the crucial difference between the "inevitable discovery" doctrine and the "independent source" exception from which it is derived. When properly applied, the "independent source" exception allows the prosecution to use evidence only if it was, in fact, obtained by fully lawful means. It therefore does no violence to the constitutional protections that the exclusionary rule is meant to enforce. The "inevitable discovery" exception is likewise compatible with the Constitution, though it differs in one key respect from its next of kin: specifically, the evidence sought to be introduced at trial has not actually been obtained from an independent source, but rather would have been discovered as a matter of course if independent investigations were allowed to proceed.

In my view, this distinction should require that the government satisfy a heightened burden of proof before it is allowed to use such evidence. The inevitable discovery exception necessarily implicates a hypothetical finding that differs in kind from the factual finding that precedes application of the independent source rule. To ensure that this hypothetical finding is narrowly confined to circumstances that are functionally equivalent to an independent source, and to protect fully the fundamental rights served by the exclusionary rule, I would require clear and convincing evidence before concluding that the government had met its burden of proof on this issue. See Wade, supra, at 240. Increasing the burden of

BRENNAN, J., dissenting

467 U. S.

proof serves to impress the factfinder with the importance of the decision and thereby reduces the risk that illegally obtained evidence will be admitted. Cf. Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418, 427 (1979); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 764 (1982) ("Raising the standard of proof would have both practical and symbolic consequences"). Because the lower courts did not impose such a requirement, I would remand this case for application of this heightened burden of proof by the lower courts in the first instance. I am therefore unable to join either the Court's opinion or its judgment.

Syllabus

MICHIGAN CANNERS & FREEZERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AND BARGAINING BOARD ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN

No. 82-1577. Argued March 19, 1984-Decided June 11, 1984 The federal Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 (AFPA) was enacted to enable individual farmers and other producers of agricultural commodities to join together voluntarily in cooperative associations in order to protect their marketing and bargaining position as against large and powerful agricultural processors. The AFPA makes it unlawful for "handlers"-defined to include both processors and producers' associations to coerce any producer "in the exercise of his right to join . . . or to refrain from joining" a producers' association, 7 U. S. C. § 2303(a), or to coerce any producer to enter into or terminate a marketing contract with a producers' association or a contract with a handler, § 2303(c). The Michigan Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Act (Michigan Act) includes the same prohibitions as the AFPA, but goes beyond it by establishing a state-administered system by which producers' associations are organized and certified as exclusive bargaining agents for all producers of a particular commodity. Under this system, if an association's membership constitutes more than 50% of the producers of a particular commodity and its members' production accounts for more than 50% of the commodity's total production, the association may be accredited as the exclusive bargaining agent for all producers of that commodity. Upon accreditation of the association, all producers of the commodity, regardless of whether they have chosen to become members of the association, must pay a service fee to the association and must abide by the contracts the association negotiates with processors. The Michigan Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Association (MACMA), a producers' association accredited under the Michigan Act, is the sole sales and bargaining representative for asparagus producers in the State. After the MACMA had negotiated contracts on behalf of Michigan asparagus growers to sell the asparagus crop for a certain year, appellant asparagus growers and association of asparagus processors, sued MACMA in state court seeking a declaratory judgment that the provisions of the Michigan Act requiring service fees and mandatory adherence to an association-negotiated contract are pre-empted by the AFPA. The Michigan Supreme Court rejected appellants' claim, holding that the

AFPA prohibited only processor misconduct, whereas the challenged provisions of the Michigan Act regulated producers' activities.

Held: The challenged provisions of the Michigan Act are pre-empted by the AFPA. Pp. 469–478.

(a) This is a case where the basis for pre-emption is that Congress, while not displacing state regulation entirely, has pre-empted state law to the extent that it conflicts with federal law and "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67. Pp. 469-470. (b) The AFPA's theme of voluntariness is carried through to the provisions defining the prohibited practices. By defining the term "handler" to include producers' associations as well as processors, the AFPA prohibits interference by the former to the same extent that it prohibits interference by the latter. Just as the AFPA forbids processors to interfere in a producer's decision to become or remain affiliated with an association, it also forbids a producers' association to interfere in that decision by coercing producers to belong to, or participate in a marketing contract with, the association. Pp. 470-471.

(c) Congress' intent to shield producers from coercion by both processors and producers' associations is confirmed by the AFPA's legislative history, which reveals that the question of the producer's free choice was a central focus of congressional attention during passage of the Act. Despite the fact that the Michigan Act and the AFPA share the goal of augmenting the producer's bargaining power, the Michigan Act conflicts with the AFPA by establishing "accredited" associations that wield the power to coerce producers to sell their products according to terms established by the association and to force producers to pay a service fee for the privilege. Pp. 471–477.

(d) The Michigan Act empowers producers' associations to do precisely what the AFPA forbids them to do. In effect, an association accredited under the Michigan Act may coerce a producer to enter into a marketing contract with a producers' association-a clear violation of § 2303(c). In addition, although the Michigan Act does not compel a producer to join an association, it binds him to the association's marketing contracts, forces him to pay fees to the association, and precludes him from marketing his goods himself, and thus, in practical effect, imposes on the producer the same incidents of association membership with which Congress was concerned in enacting § 2303(a). Pp. 477-478. 416 Mich. 706, 332 N. W. 2d 134, reversed.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Joseph G. Scoville argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Ernest M. Sharpe and Jon D. Botsford.

John H. Garvey argued the cause for the United States. as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on brief were Solicitor General Lee and Deputy Solicitor General Geller. James A. White argued the cause for appellees and filed a brief for appellee Michigan Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. With him on the brief were Theodore W. Swift and Michael J. Schmedlen. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, and Charles D. Hackney, Henry J. Boynton, and Michael J. Moquin, Assistant Attorneys General, filed a brief for appellee Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Board.*

JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

A perceived need to help the American farmer in his economic relations with large and powerful agricultural processors has moved Congress and various States to enact laws designed to bolster the farmer's bargaining power when bringing his goods to market. This case involves two such laws: the federal Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 and the State of Michigan's Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Act (Michigan Act). The question presented is whether certain provisions of the Michigan Act, which accord agricultural cooperative associations exclusive bargaining authority for the sale of agricultural products, are pre-empted by the federal Act. The Supreme Court of Michigan held that the Michigan Act is not pre-empted. 416

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Frozen Food Institute by James F. Rill and Norman G. Knopf; and for the National Food Processors Association by H. Edward Dunkelberger, Jr. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Farm Bureau Federation by John J. Rademacher and C. David Mayfield; and for the California Tomato Grower's Association et al. by Gerald D. Marcus.