VI: Independent source doctrine overcame Miranda violation

Defendant was arrested without probable cause and should have been Mirandized before he made a statement. A citizen’s report of the smell of a decomposing body had been separately received, and that produced the body. People v. Castillo, 49 V.I. 195 (2008):

From the circumstances presented, the Court finds beyond cavil that law enforcement would have inevitably discovered and did in fact independently discover Laquina Hennis’ body. Although the officers had searched the 8th Street structure(s) several times, a citizen’s report on April 11, 2007, complaining of a stench emanating from the shed adjacent to the dwelling occupied by the Defendant, led to the officers’ return and subsequent recovery of the body. It was therefore only a matter of time before the victim’s body would have been inevitably, but independently found, particularly given that the investigation of the missing child involved multiple agencies from territorial and federal levels.

Vehicle frisk was valid under Long, and raising Thornton was a “red herring.” United States v. Diaz, 519 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2008):

We refuse to pursue the red herring of Thornton dangled by Diaz. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Thornton, regarding the lawfulness of vehicular searches incident to arrest, does nothing to abrogate the limited vehicular “frisk” permitted during a Terry stop by Long and its progeny. Indeed, the majority’s reasoning in Thornton only strengthens the rationale for the type of search conducted in this case. If officer safety concerns justify the search of a vehicle’s passenger compartment where the vehicle’s occupant had exited the vehicle before being confronted by police and was arrested, handcuffed, and secured in the backseat of a police car, surely safety concerns justify the same search where the vehicle’s occupant was only temporarily detained under Terry and may imminently regain control of the vehicle and its contents. Thus, the district court properly denied Diaz’s motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition found in the vehicle.

Defendant raised a search issue in his state case, lost on standing, and then pled guilty one day into trial, and that was a waiver of the Fourth Amendment claim. He filed a state post-conviction petition challenging the search as an IAC claim. He had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his search claim under Stone. Chippolla v. Valdez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17501 (D. Idaho March 6, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.