{"id":4526,"date":"2011-03-05T12:01:30","date_gmt":"2010-08-09T00:16:14","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-08-08T13:36:14","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4526","title":{"rendered":"CA6: Defendant was unlawfully seized essentially “hop[ing] that something might turn up” and it did and was suppressed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Singling defendant out in a group of four or five, two officers approached him and accused him of a crime. This was a seizure because a reasonable person would not feel free to disengage from it. Applying the Brown<\/a> attenuation factors, defendant\u2019s statement is suppressed. United States v. Williams<\/a>, 615 F.3d 657, 2010 FED App. 0234P (6th Cir. 2010):<\/p>\n

Finally, although Vass’s misconduct was not flagrant, his purpose weighs against attenuation. The Supreme Court has explained that the purposefulness factor is met when the unlawful action is investigatory, that is, when officers unlawfully seize a defendant “in the hope that something might turn up.” Brown<\/a>, 422 U.S. at 605; Shaw, 464 F.3d at 630-31. The purpose of stopping Williams was to seek evidence against him, and toward that end Vass immediately asked several questions related to criminal activity other than trespassing. … Indeed, the warrant and firearm evidence came out only because Vass asked about it. …<\/p>\n

P17 The totality of the circumstances, analyzed through the Brown<\/a> factors, makes clear that there was no attenuation of the connection between Vass’s unconstitutional seizure of Williams and the incriminating evidence. Rather, this case calls for a straightforward application of the exclusionary rule and the related fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. Because the incriminating evidence was “come at by exploitation of th[e] illegality” of the seizure, not “by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint,” Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488, the district court correctly suppressed it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant was illegally arrested in his own home, and the situation was found coercive of his consent, also involving his \u201cyoung son.\u201d Suppression granted. United States v. Stokely, 733 F. Supp. 2d 868 (E.D. Tenn. June 17, 2010) (R&R), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79303 (E.D. Tenn. August 5, 2010), Nunc Pro Tunc to July 16, 2010.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4526","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4526","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4526"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4526\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4526"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4526"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4526"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}