{"id":11578,"date":"2014-05-16T17:54:57","date_gmt":"2014-05-16T22:54:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=11578"},"modified":"2014-05-16T17:54:57","modified_gmt":"2014-05-16T22:54:57","slug":"s-d-n-y-payton-violation-doesnt-require-suppression-of-confession","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=11578","title":{"rendered":"S.D.N.Y.: Payton violation doesn\u2019t require suppression of confession"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Payton violation doesn\u2019t require suppression of confession. United States v. Medina, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65708 (S.D. N.Y. May 7, 2014):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Finally, even if a Payton violation had occurred, it would not warrant suppression of Medina&#8217;s post-arrest statements. The Supreme Court has &#8220;decline[d] to apply the exclusionary rule in this context because the rule in Payton was designed to protect the physical integrity of the home; it was not intended to grant criminal suspects &#8230; protection for statements made outside their premises where the police have probable cause to arrest the suspect for committing a crime.&#8221; New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 17, 110 S. Ct. 1640, 109 L. Ed. 2d 13 (1990). Accordingly, &#8220;where the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the &#8230; use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton.&#8221; Id. at 21.<\/p>\n<p>Because the NYPD had probable cause to arrest Medina, the exclusionary rule would not apply to his post-arrest statements, even if a Payton violation had occurred. Accordingly, Medina&#8217;s post-arrest statements will not be suppressed on this basis.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Payton violation doesn\u2019t require suppression of confession. United States v. Medina, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65708 (S.D. N.Y. May 7, 2014): Finally, even if a Payton violation had occurred, it would not warrant suppression of Medina&#8217;s post-arrest statements. The Supreme &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=11578\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11578","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-exclusionary-rule"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11578","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11578"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11578\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11579,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11578\/revisions\/11579"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11578"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11578"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11578"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}