Document: 435 U.S. 268 98 S.Ct. 1054 55 L.Ed.2d UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Ralph CECCOLINI. No. 76-1151. Argued Dec. 5, 1978. Decided March 21, Syllabus A police officer (Biro), while taking a break in respondent's flower shop and conversing with an employee of the (Hennessey), noticed envelope money protruding therefrom lying on cash register. Upon examination, he found it contained not only but policy slips. Biro then placed back register without telling Hennessey what had asked her to whom belonged. She told him belonged respondent. Biro's finding was reported local detectives FBI, who interviewed some four months later referring incident involving Biro. About six after that respondent summoned before federal grand jury where testified never taken bets at his shop, contrary, shortly thereafter indicted for perjury. against trial, guilt District Court granted motion suppress Hennessey's testimony set aside finding. The Appeals affirmed, noting "road" from concededly unconstitutional search "both straight uninterrupted." Held: erred concluding degree attenuation between trial sufficient dissipate connection illegality challenged testimony. Pp. 273-280. (a) In determining whether exclusionary rule its deterrent purpose should be applied, benefits balanced i § costs, and, evaluating standards application live-witness light this balance, material factors considered are length Fourth Amendment violation witness' testimony; free will exercised by witness; fact exclusion would perpetually disable witness testifying about relevant facts regardless how unrelated such might originally illegal or evidence discovered thereby. 273-279. (b) Here, indicates overwhelmingly act own no way coerced induced official authority as result discovery slips, substantial time elapsed initial contact latter testimony, both identity relationship were well known investigating officers, there is entered picked up intent illicit gambling operation, could have slightest effect behavior Biro, cost permanently silencing too great evenhanded system law enforcement bear order secure speculative very likely negligible effect. 279-280. (c) invoked much greater reluctance claim based causal constitutional live than when similar advanced support suppression inanimate object. P. 280. 542 F.2d 136, reversed. Richard A. Allen, petitioner. Leon J. Greenspan, White Plains, N. Y., Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 December 1974, Ronald uniformed assignment patrol school crossings, place business, Sleepy Hollow Flower Shop, North Tarrytown, Y. He went behind customer counter words Ichabod Crane, one Tarrytown's more illustrious inhabitants days gone past, "tarried," spending short engaged conversation friend Lois Hennessey, shop. During course sticking out drawer counter. upon examining contents, seen, replied Ceccolini, instructed give someone. 2 next day, Officer mentioned Tarrytown turn Lance Emory, FBI agent. This ordinary lives requires us, over three years later, decide Ceccolini been suppressed Respondent charged offense because denied knew anything of, any involved with, operations. guilty bench United States Southern New York, immediately "suppress" court concluded "fruit poisonous tree"; assuming directed verdict included guilty, t insufficient guilt. Government appealed these rulings Second Circuit. 3 That rightly entitled appeal granting setting since further proceedings if successful barred Double Jeopardy Clause.1 139-140 (1976). sensibly first made factual question innocence, ruled suppress; reversal require Court, merely reinstatement v. Morrison, 429 1, 97 24, 50 (1976); Wilson, 420 332, 352-353, 95 1013, 1026, 43 232 (1975). 4 Government, however, merits appeal; divided vote affirmed Court's ruling. F.2d, 140-142. We certiorari consider correctness ruling Appeals. 431 903, 1693, 52 386 (1977). 5 * part 1973, Federal Bureau Investigation exploring suspected operations Tarrytown. Among establishments under surveillance which frequent regular stop Francis Millow, himself suspect investigation. While investigation continued reduced scale 1973,2 curtailed time. It thus full year discontinuance spent Hennessey. When slips following day Emory fully informed manner obtained information. Four home half hour presence mother two sisters. identified himself, indicated learned through department she worked respondent, appreciate information regarding activities acquired did specifically refer studying science college willing help. related events occurred during visit 6 May 1975, Millow week perjury.3 waived jury, consent all parties simultaneously At conclusion evidence, excluded consideration "the contents envelope," nonetheless charged. then, previously described, "first came directly attention government search" "sustained burden showing Henness[e]y's definitely search." App. Pet. Cert. 28a-29a. 7 Government's appeal, reasoning road Miss 142. also record ongoing inevitably led Id., 141. Because our traditional deference "two rule," Graver Mfg. Co. Linde Co., 336 271, 275, 69 535, 537, 93 L.Ed. 672 (1949), has sought review ruling, we leave undisturbed Appeals' decision. wrong do reach contention applied derived being used prove subsequent crime II 8 analogized train perjury literally thousands roads traveled periodically original investigative ultimate accused. phrased Wong Sun States, 371 471, 83 407, 9 441 (1963), lawless conduct 'become so attenuated taint.' " 487, 491, 417. earlier decision Nardone 308 338, 341, 60 266, 268, 84 307 (1939), Frankfurter stated Court: "Here, Silverthorne case [Silverthorne Lumber ], improperly sacred inaccessible. If knowledge them gained independent source they may proved like others, cannot it' simply derivatively. 251 385, 392, 40 182, 64 319. 10 "In practice generalized statement conceal concrete complexities. Sophisticated argument wire-tapping proof. As matter good sense, become taint." 11 This, course, makes perfectly clear, indeed ever doubt matter, setting, many other questions concerns itself, determined solely sort analysis applicable physical sciences. issue decided basis causation logical sense alone, necessarily includes elements well. And cases Nardone, supra, laid fundamental tenets rule, inquiry can divined. 12 An examination leads us reject suggestion adopt amount per se close proximate Amendment. reaffirm holding Sun, 485, 416, "verbal derives unlawful entry unauthorized arrest officers' action present less 'fruit' common tangible fruits unwarranted intrusion." view, significantly qualify observation policies underlying [do not] invite distinction verbal evidence." U.S., 486, S.Ct., 416. Rather, least this, alleged tree" witness, unlike putative defendant, persuades uninterrupted, immaterial. Its length, hold, material, certain enumerated below gave weight. 13 Stone Powell, 428 465, 96 3037, 3049, 49 1067 (1976), observed "despite broad interpreted proscribe introduction illegally seized persons." Recognizing often substantial, said "application restricted those areas remedial objectives thought most efficaciously served," Calandra, 414 348, 94 613, 620, 38 561 (1974). case, refused presentation jury. likewise declined prohibit use impeaching defendant testifies behalf. Walder 347 62, 74 354, 503 (1954). 14 limited standing requirement context "additional extending . rule" persons ones subject outweighed "further encroachment public interest prosecuting accused having acquitted convicted exposes truth." Alderman 394 165, 174-175, 89 961, 967, 22 176 (1969). Even situations plainly applicable, "per 'but for' make inadmissible somehow chain began arrest. Brown Illinois, 422 590, 603, 2254, 2261, 45 416 15 Evaluating impelled conclude irrelevant extent basic application. certainly true statements arrest, 419; fortiori given nondefendants. 16 willingness freely testify, likelihood legal means concomitantly, smaller incentive discover witness.4 Witnesses guns documents remain hidden view until turns sofa opens filing cabinet. can, do, come forward offer entirely their volition. evaluated properly, necessary taint kinds evidence. time, questioning truly product detached reflection desire cooperative witness. play meaningful testify. 17 "The proffer living mechanically equated evidentiary objects seized. name potential disclosed significance, se, individual human personality whose attributes will, perception, memory volition interact determine give. uniqueness process distinguishes character relative immutability Smith 117 U.S.App.D.C. 3-4, 324 879, 881-882 (1963) (Burger, J.) (footnotes omitted), cert. denied, 377 954, 1632, 498 (1964). 18 Another factor usefulness particular context, seems differentiate witnesses—even defendants—from typical documentary facts, Rules disqualify knowledgeable witnesses are, Professor McCormick, "serious obstructions ascertainment truth"; accordingly, "[f]or century evolution direction sweeping away obstructions." C. Law Evidence 71 Alluding enormous engendered permanent disability analogous hold "making confession circumstances preclude use, disables confessor making usable conditions removed." Bayer, 331 532, 541, 67 1394, 1398, 91 1654 (1947). For same reasons, held admissible defendant's inadequate Miranda warnings. Michigan Tucker, 417 433, 450-451, 2357, 2367, 41 182 19 ' For, balancing interests involved, must weigh strong justice available trier trustworthy either party seeks adduce. Here statement, helped prosecution show conscience already excised prosecution's pursuant Johnson Jersey, 384 719, 86 1772, 882 (1966) To extend excision exclude third-party far persuasive arguments respondent." 20 short, excluding greater, closer, direct link kind required. 21 say, always even usually reliable dependable Indeed, just opposite true. But determination sufficiently permit rests comparative reliability Attenuation analysis, appropriately concerned differences consistently focus above respect former, different latter. considerations relating principles designed protect ago: 23 "A criminal game checkmated lost officers played according rule." McGuire 273 95, 99, 47 259, 260, 556 (1927). 24 penalties visited public, violated relation purposes serve. III 25 Viewing discussed, Nor themselves Substantial periods hand, other. logically traced case. There is, addition, suggest bearing searched testify Application situation 26 Obviously mathematical weight assigned obviously point judgment accordingly 27 Reversed. 28 BLACKMUN took 29 Chief BURGER, concurring judgment. 30 I agree difference, types perceive fundamental, prevent factfinder hearing considering except perhaps remarkable circumstances—although none postulated lead me 31 position, essential mind purported justification employing context: deterrence misconduct. See 3047, Janis, 458-459, n. 35, 3021, 3034, 1046 abstract intellectual proposition buttressed plausible rationale comprehensible connection—albeit largely dubiously speculative—between intentional officer.1 appropriate every otherwise reality measurably altered course. 32 On correct "[a]pplication Biro." Ante, Reaching result, judicial excursion into area "philosophers able argue endlessly,"2 namely, "free will" person engaging speaking. 33 history ideas thinkers maintained persuasion thing will," term implies ability actor regulate conduct. Others steadfastly opposite, arguing innately choose among alternatives. Still third group deny coherent meaning. These few perspectives lies core religious heritage. ancient debate undoubtedly continue, "society choice matter. proceed scientifically unprovable assumption beings choices regulation influenced society's personal standards." Blocker 110 41, 53, 88 853, 865 (1961) J., result). Jackson expressed Gregg Cartage & Storage 316 74, 80, 62 932, 935, 1283 (1942): "[T]he practical business administration obliged rough ready judgments mature rational control conduct." Steward Machine Davis, 301 548, 57 883, 892, 81 1279 (1937), Cardozo put thus: "Till now guided robust assumes freedom working hypothesis solution problems." 34 cognizant continually confront inherent obstacle person's unable know certainty content another's mind. cross barrier daily, culpability.3 Yet trials risk error—substantially diminished proof beyond reasonable effectuate common-law tradition imposing punishment morally responsible acts. analogue concern, exclusion, admitted pragmatic purpose—based suggested hypotheses ought apply reasoned discrimination, automatic response. results achieved current bizarre enough steering hope framework inquiry. 35 obvious nonsense postulate brief encounter florist painstaking affect disposition future point. engage scholastic hindsight, particularly dissent done here, speculation proceeds unfounded probable explanations quite another suppose officer, contemplating action, to, 36 several reasons which, add, acceptable world. Initially, concept effective consciously realizes consequences presumably impermissible possibility actions—because possible suppression—will undermine chances convicting criminal. strongly vast majority instances remotely aware existence example, seizure item guides eyewitness. Of conducting plausible, gain access knowing prevailing doctrine whatever found.4 37 suspects actions produce faces intractable problem understanding valuable philosopher aptly "[t]he consists impossibility still lie future." L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus ¶ 5.1362 (Pears McGuinness trans. 1961). (1964), oath: [living] (Emphasis added.) (Footnotes omitted.) 39 argued, prospect helpful role policeman's indifferent procedures. answer point, insisted whenever possibility, remote, deterring balance society losing competent incrementally enhancing values. See, e. g., Stone, 3047; 350-351, 621, (1974); 966-977, Using approach strikes evident witness—who, all, appearing oath—is worth high price exacts. Any operates keep eyewitness crime—a murder, example—from saw roughly comparable primitive rituals sacrifice. would, therefore, resolve basis, admissible, provided meets requirements. alleviate burden—now squarely thrust courts—of each instance possessed elusive quality characterized will." 42 MARSHALL, BRENNAN joins, dissenting. "reaffirm[ing]" tree," today "significantly qualif[ies]" Sun's conclusion, id., 'logical distinction' drawn rule. 275. my attempts draw withstand analysis. "a time-worn metaphor," Harrison 392 219, 222, 2008, 1047 (1968), believe tree, roots seizure, fruit, susceptible grounds. therefore dissent. 44 correctly states us: officer's disputed "so taint," (1939). ante, 274. resolving attenuation, courts typically scrutinize matters "temporal proximity" intervening circumstances," flagrancy misconduct." 603-604, 2262, retains general framework, "[a]ttenuation analysis" "concerned 278-279. noted large accommodated doctrine. Where accommodated, asserted illusory relevance attenuation. One difference witnesses, objects, "can, volition." 276. Recognition does nothing advance long ago that, illegality, admitted. 319 (1920) (Holmes, J.). "independent source" comes instant recognizes, 273, 'straight uninterrupted' 46 normal Assuming admissible—a questioned, Fitzpatrick 1050, 554, 338 (1973) (White, dissenting denial certiorari)—this "inevitable discovery" admit who, absence misconduct, "entirely [his her] Again, presented accepts findings lower discovered. 1058-1059. Both independent-source inevitable-discovery rules, moreover, show, source, means, location object activity. volition, underscores involves form "double counting." apparently stemmed discovered; neither rules apply, take account (but case), sometimes 48 witness." somewhat incredible premise refrain "will means." Ibid. surely reverses sequence events; potentially prior search. means," 276—if find legally. "perpetually disable[s] facts." 277. "perpetual disable[ment]" speaks, applies excluded, duration despite "relevant [and] UNRELATED TO THE PURPOSE OF ORIGINALLY ILLEGAL SEARCh." ibid. Moreover, "often" costly society, 278, evidence—such heroin narcotics possession records tax case—will societal interests. other, important interests, see 599-600, 2259-2260; reaffirms, "fruits probative value, unless justify Although, notes, 272; 279, FBI's critical search, questioned 270. period trial. authorities ask student science; agent go interrogate her. 272. 51 Finally, itself arguable legality, conceded below. 140 (CA2 1976). undisputed force actively participated; participation interception telephone conversations month 271-272, 2. Under circumstances, here deemed properly affirm Appeal authorized clear language U.S.C. 3731 (1976 ed.). section permits "[a]n district [sic ] suppressing ., jeopardy indictment .." Congress intended pretrial orders appealable, added phrase "and information." 3, implicated betting intercepted participating combined federal-state second count knowingly false Hank Bucci judge count, "although charge met doubt." 28a. conducted specific discovering witnesses. Empirically speaking, though, gravest doubts appreciable situations—emergency particular. Bivens Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 388, 416-417, 426-427, 1999, 2014-2015, 2019-2020, 619 (1971) dissenting). Sartre, Being Nothingness 433 (Barnes 1956). hurdle civil cases, rest standard "reasonable man's" actions. assume ordinarily capable conforming objective reasonableness. Consequently, indulged possesses actions, generally need inquire mental processes such. Perhaps arise obtaining names circumstance possibly behavior. clearly occur nor conceive would. event, depend motivation want speculate, unlikely modifying problem.

Category: 0