E.D.Pa.: No attenuation to save statement made after arrest w/o PC

No attenuation: defendant was arrested without probable cause and gave a statement, and there is no intervening event. Statement suppressed. United States v. Vilella, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168741 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 6, 2016):

Applying the Brown factors in Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 691, 102 S. Ct. 2664, 73 L. Ed. 2d 314 (1982), the Supreme Court suppressed the defendant’s confession as fruit of an illegal arrest because, inter alia, he “was arrested without probable cause in the hope that something would turn up, and he confessed shortly thereafter without any meaningful intervening event.” With respect to the “temporal proximity” prong, the Court rejected the State’s argument that Taylor was distinguishable from Brown because “the length of time between the illegal arrest and the confession was six hours in this case, while in Brown … the incriminating statements were obtained within two hours.” Id. The Court explained that “a difference of a few hours is not significant where, as here, [the defendant] was in police custody, unrepresented by counsel, and he was questioned on several occasions, fingerprinted, and subjected to a lineup.” Id.

The Third Circuit applied the Brown factors in United States v. Butts, 704 F.2d 701 (1983), a case factually similar to this one, which the Government ignores. In that case, the defendant was convicted of mail theft after having been stopped in a car that police officers had followed because they had probable cause that two co-defendants had stolen government checks. After being taken to the station with the co-defendants, the defendant waived his Miranda rights and admitted to possession of the stolen checks. Id. at 703. The Court held that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant and that his confession would be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree because the Government had failed to demonstrate that any “meaningful” event had purged the taint of the illegal arrest. Id. at 705.

Following Taylor and Butts, application of the Brown factors to the instant case evinces that the taint of Defendant’s unlawful arrest was not dissipated by the time he confessed, and Defendant’s Statement must therefore be suppressed.

A good advocate doesn’t just ignore the strongest case against his or her position. Explain it away. You may still lose but it’s better than being told by the court you ignored a case in point that sinks your case.

This entry was posted in Attenuation. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.