Document: 457 U.S. 687 102 S.Ct. 2664 73 L.Ed.2d 314 Omar TAYLOR, Petitionerv.ALABAMA. No. 81-5152. Argued March 23, 1982. Decided June Syllabus Petitioner was arrested on a grocery-store robbery charge without warrant or probable cause, based an uncorroborated informant's tip, and taken to the police station, where he given Miranda warnings, fingerprinted, questioned, placed in lineup. After being told that his fingerprints matched those grocery items handled by one of participants after short visit with girlfriend, petitioner signed written confession. Over petitioner's objection, confession admitted into evidence at trial Alabama state court, convicted. The Court Criminal Appeals reversed, holding should not have been admitted, but turn reversed Supreme Court. Held : Petitioner's suppressed as fruit illegal arrest. Brown v. Illinois, 422 590, 95 2254, 45 416; Dunaway New York, 442 200, 99 2248, 60 824. Pp. 689-694. (a) A obtained through custodial interrogation arrest be excluded unless intervening events break causal connection between so is sufficiently act free will purge primary taint. 689-690. (b) Here, there no meaningful event. illegality initial cured facts six hours elapsed confession; may "voluntary" for Fifth Amendment purposes because warnings were given; permitted girlfriend; did physically abuse petitioner. Nor fact warrant, comparison fingerprints, filed had while interrogated significant event, such irrelevant whether which themselves used extract confession, cannot deemed sufficient "attenuation" merely they formed basis warrant. 690-693 399 So.2d 881 (Ala.1981), remanded. Robert M. Beno, Montgomery, Ala., Thomas R. Allison, respondent. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion 1 This case presents narrow question held properly admitted. Because decision below inconsistent our decisions 824 (1979), 416 (1975), we reverse. 2 * In 1978, store robbed. There number robberies this area, initiated intensive manhunt effort apprehend robbers. An individual who time incarcerated unrelated charges officer "he heard [petitioner] Taylor involved robbery." App. 4. never before similar information officer, tell information, provide any details crime. tip insufficient give cause obtain 3 Nonetheless, two officers They robbery, searched him, took him station questioning. required Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966). At readvised rights, victims unable identify some robbery. girlfriend male companion, waiver-of-rights form executed evidence. 4 objected admission trial. He argued warrantless supported involuntarily transported must court overruled On appeal, 875 (1980), are virtually indistinguishable from presented supra, Appeals, (1981), granted certiorari, 454 963, 502, 70 378 (1981). II 5 suspects cause. headquarters, advised their interrogated. confessed within confessions admissible trial, reasoning " 'sufficiently taint.' 602, S.Ct., 2261 (quoting Wong Sun United States, 371 471, 486, 83 407, 416, 9 441 (1963)). See also 217, 2259. identified several factors considered determining has purged taint arrest: "[t]he temporal proximity presence circumstances, . and, particularly, purpose flagrancy official misconduct." 603-604, (citations footnote omitted); U.S., 218, State bears burden proving admissible. Ibid. 6 Dunaway, firmly established Amendment, sense understood, itself situation, finding "voluntariness" threshold requirement Fourth analysis. reason approach clear: exclusionary rule, when utilized effectuate serves interests policies distinct it under Fifth" Amendment. 601, 2260. If viewed talisman all violations, then constitutional guarantee against unlawful searches seizures would reduced mere 'form words.' Id., 603, Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 648, 81 1684, 1687, 1081 (1961)). 7 virtual replica both Dunaway. hope something up, shortly thereafter State's arguments contrary unpersuasive. begins focusing It observes length case, incriminating statements hours. However, difference few where, here, custody, unrepresented counsel, questioned occasions, subjected even demonstrated amount spent interrogation, arguing only "had every opportunity consider organize thoughts, contemplate exercise will." Brief Respondent 11. 8 points argues three times. As foregoing discussion demonstrates, however, reliance giving misplaced. visited companion confessed. claim fares better. According petitioner, these visitors outside room questioned. form, allowed meet visitors. fails explain how 5- 10-minute visit, immediately recanted former knew nothing about could possibly contributed ability carefully objectively options will. suggestion particularly dubious light uncontroverted testimony emotionally upset visit.1 inference drawn, just opposite effect. another "intervening event." While determined Based comparison, filed. filing like Johnson Louisiana, 406 356, 92 1620, 32 152 (1972), defendant brought committing Magistrate rights set bail. ex parte, found scene crime arrest, see Davis Mississippi, 394 721, 89 1394, 22 676 (1969), interrogated.2 10 Finally, conduct here flagrant purposeful, follow reason. fail relevant distinction effectuated investigatory up. does cure Alternatively, contends adopting "good faith" exception rule. To date, recognized exception, decline do here. III 11 sum, Under Illinois clearly Accordingly, reverse remand further proceedings opinion. 12 ordered. 13 O'CONNOR, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, POWELL, REHNQUIST join, dissenting. 14 holds today Taylor's detailed consequently, suppressed. I conclude neither nor law supports Court's analysis, respectfully dissent. 15 course investigation Moseley Montgomery Charles Martin, rape charges. Martin stated Moseley's Grocery," Tr. 6, made attempt establish either Martin's credibility informant reliability provided.1 Sergeants Alford Rutland little p. m. January 4, 1979. time, why asked questions regarding 20, 24. When arrived turned over detectives. 17 fingerprinted acknowledging Detective Wilson minutes, 48, lineup victims, Mrs. Moseley. 37-38. lineup, lasted hour, id., Following removed Nevertheless, denied knowledge 18 Toward evening, Hicks 25, once again read setting forth rights. 28, 125. ask lawyer indicate want talk police. 28-29, 35, 40. During interview Taylor, confronted fingerprint 36. urged cooperate police, refrained making promises, stating most inform judge cooperation. 31, 34. continued deny involvement 35-36. 19 conversation, neighbor came requested speak him. indicated wanted friends, left them alone office minutes.2 meeting, crime, confession.3 20 Before moved suppress product violation Sixth assumed illegal,4 voluntary, consistent Amendments, "there enough confession" overcome 116. 21 Although misapprehends present correctly controlling substantive law. words, "a Ante, 690 2261, (1975)). Brown, emphasized "Miranda important factor [was] exploitation arrest." 226.5 discount significance other factors, noting per se, always make break, purposes, confession." holds, therefore, misconduct relevant." (footnotes citations omitted). 23 reviewed record "Brown's first statement separated less than hours, [that] event whatsoever." 604, 2262. Moreover, arresting egregious. "impropriety obvious," "manner Brown's effected gives appearance having calculated surprise, fright, confusion." 605, consequence 24 Four Terms later, 204, 2252, reaffirmed rule order use following 25 "the prosecution show voluntariness standard, broken 26 Finding "virtually situation Brown," 2259, Critical its observation "confessed significance." 219, 2260 ("No broke detention confession"). 27 Our task apply articulated case. 28 consideration warned separate occasions 29 right remain silent, [and] anything said law[;] attorney present, if afford one, appoint him[;] answer stop answering time." 23. 30 counted "an arrest," though are, standing alone, prove purged. 31 Second, contrast intimidating misconduct. house it. later home, pointed guns leading manner [the petitioner's] By contrast, us indicates violent, designed "cause Instead, approached name, station. Third, "no whatsoever," 2262, meeting steadfastly Immediately gave complete participation armed described suppression hearing, plainly constituted circumstance. 33 reveals himself.6 defendants continuously statements. 34 four together,7 obvious overturn court's factors" fact, believe clear carried proof. silent dispute understood waived voluntarily coercion. receiving sets met neighbor, request. decided confess proximately caused friends. became upon hearing advise cooperate. 16. Contrary allegations dissent, point contradict version girlfriend's emotional respect consistent. testified commencement period 136-137. during same interval, girlfriend. District findings incidents. assuming accuracy dissent's facts, compare post, 695, n. 2, 136-137, dissent offers explanation conclusion purges raises ambiguous objection motion take nature unclear, uncertain procedure taking second preserved review. need reach issue ground extent still challenge fingerprinting employed below, courts address instance. suspected complicity 15. developed instigated, planned, participated rather different account apparently stems accept favorable wants reach. That decision, runs counter longstanding practice federal appellate uphold denial if, absence express district reasonable view support States Payton, 615 F.2d 922, 923 (CA1), cert. denied, 446 969, 100 2950, 64 830 (1980); Vicknair, 610 372, 376, (CA5), 449 823, 101 83, 66 (1980). "girlfriend she Omar, her. And let her." 35. specifically 133-134. detective acknowledged cooperation, expressly "cooperation." 134. course, vastly version. her presence, facing years life prison, cooperated might able arrange suspended sentence probation. Upon remark, began cry, 52. noted above, More importantly, comparing versions, becomes holding, parsed story plucked tidbits contradict. method review hardly comports adopt ruling. Since unreasonable together. suggestion, discredited upset. Thus, errs intimating created coercive atmosphere friends' advice, decide plan rob Grocery. role distract Mr. buying groceries. Just accomplices pulled out guns, put down groceries walked approaching car car. saw car, reenter store, stopped place. Thereafter fled, cofelons preassigned place, share money. 128-132. seriously contend 8, 10. derived seminal (1963), rejected "but for" test gathered violation. "We hold 'fruit poisonous tree' simply come actions Rather, more apt 'whether, granting establishment illegality, instant instead means distinguishable Maguire, Evidence Guilt, 221 (1959)." 487-488, 417. STEVENS concurring "temporal relationship factor," 220, 2260, lengthy exploit least easily brief detention. seems remarkable, way other, each circumstance context examined failure circumstances whole erroneous conclusion.

Category: 0