Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/371/471
Timestamp: 2014-11-28 18:17:45
Document Index: 364477569

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 174', '§ 174', '§ 3109', '§ 174', '§ 174', '§ 174', '§ 7607', '§ 2070', '§ 402']

WONG SUN and James Wah Toy, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES. | LII / Legal Information Institute
Supreme Court aboutsearch liibulletin subscribe previews WONG SUN and James Wah Toy, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.
371 U.S. 471 (83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441)
[HTML] Edward Bennett Williams, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
The petitioners were tried without a jury in the District Court for the Northern District of California under a two-count indictment for violation of the Federal Narcotics Laws, 21 U.S.C. 174, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174.
They were acquitted under the first count which charged a conspiracy, but convicted under the second count which charged the substantive offense of fraudulent and knowing transportation and concealment of illegally imported heroin. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, one judge dissenting, affirmed the convictions. 288 F.2d 366. We granted certiorari. 368 U.S. 817, 82 S.Ct. 75, 7 L.Ed.2d 23. We heard argument in the 1961 Term and reargument this Term. 370 U.S. 908, 82 S.Ct. 1254, 8 L.Ed.2d 403.
One of the agents said to Toy '* * * (Hom Way) says he got narcotics from you.' Toy responded, 'No, I haven't been selling any narcotics at all. However, I do know somebody who has.' When asked who that was, Toy said, 'I only know him as Johnny. I don't know his last name.' However, Toy described a house on Eleventh Avenue where he said Johnny lived; he also described a bedroom in the house where he said 'Johnny kept about a piece'
of heroin, and where he and Johnny had smoked some of the drug the night before. The agents left immediately for Eleventh Avenue and located the house. They entered and found one Johnny Yee in the bedroom. After a discussion with the agents, Yee took from a bureau drawer several tubes containing in all just less than one ounce of heroin, and surrendered them. Within the hour Yee and Toy were taken to the Office of the Bureau of Narcotics. Yee there stated that the heroin had been brought to him some four days earlier by petitioner Toy and another Chinese known to him only as 'Sea Dog.'
Petitioner Toy and Johnny Yee were arraigned before a United States Commissioner on June 4 on a complaint charging a violation of 21 U.S.C. 174, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. Later that day, each was released on his own recognizance. Petitioner Wong Sun was arraigned on a similar complaint filed the next day and was also released on his own recognizance.
The agent interrogated each of the three separately. After each had been interrogated the agent prepared a statement in English from rough notes. The agent read petitioner Toy's statement to him in English and interpreted certain portions of it for him in Chinese. Toy also read the statement in English aloud to the agent, said there were corrections to be made, and made the corrections in his own hand. Toy would not sign the statement, however; in the agent's words 'he wanted to know first if the other persons involved in the case had signed theirs.' Wong Sun had considerable difficulty understanding the statement in English and the agent restated its substance in Chinese. Wong Sun refused to sign the statement although he admitted the accuracy of its contents.
The Court of Appeals held that the arrests of both petitioners were illegal because not based on "probable cause' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment' nor 'reasonable grounds' within the meaning of the Narcotic Control Act of 1956.
The court said as to Toy's arrest, 'There is no showing in this case that the agent knew Hom Way to be reliable,' and, furthermore, found 'nothing in the circumstances occurring at Toy's premises that would provide sufficient justification for his arrest without a warrant.' 288 F.2d at 369, 370. As to Wong Sun's arrest, the court said 'there is no showing that Johnnie Yee was a reliable informer.' The Court of Appeals nevertheless held that the four items of proof were not the 'fruits' of the illegal arrests and that they were therefore properly admitted in evidence.
The Court of Appeals found there was neither reasonable grounds nor probable cause for Toy's arrest. Giving due weight to that finding, we think it is amply justified by the facts clearly shown on this record. It is basic that an arrest with or without a warrant must stand upon firmer ground than mere suspicion, see Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 101, 80 S.Ct. 168, 170, 4 L.Ed.2d 134, though the arresting officer need not have in hand evidence which would suffice to convict. The quantum of information which constitutes probable causeevidence which would 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief' that a felony has been committed, Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162, 45 S.Ct. 280, 288, 69 L.Ed. 543must be measured by the facts of the particular case. The history of the use, and not infrequent abuse, of the power to arrest cautions that a relaxation of the fundamental requirements of probable cause would 'leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the officers' whim or caprice.'
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1311, 93 L.Ed. 1879.
Whether or not the requirements of reliability and particularity of the information on which an officer may act are more stringent where an arrest warrant is absent, they surely cannot be less stringent then where an arrest warrant is obtained. Otherwise, a principal incentive now existing for the procurement of arrest warrants would be destroyed.
The narcotics agents had no basis in experience for confidence in the reliability of Hom Way's information; he had never before given information. And yet they acted upon his imprecise suggestion that a person described only as 'Blackie Toy,' the proprietor of a laundry somewhere on Leavenworth Street, had sold one ounce of heroin. We have held that identification of the suspect by a reliable informant may constitute probable cause for arrest where the information given is sufficiently accurate to lead the officers directly to the suspect. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327. That rule does not, however, fit this case. For aught that the record discloses, Hom Way's accusation merely invited the officers to roam the length of Leavenworth Street (some 30 blocks) in search of one 'Blackie Toy's' laundryand whether by chance or other means (the record does not say) they came upon petitioner Toy's laundry, which bore not his name over the door, but the unrevealing label 'Oye's.' Not the slightest intimation appears on the record, or was made on oral argument, to suggest that the agents had information giving them reason to equate 'Blackie' Toy and James Wah Toye.g., that they had the criminal record of a Toy, or that they had consulted some other kind of official record or list, or had some information of some kind which had narrowed the scope of their search to this particular Toy.
It is conceded that the officers made no attempt to obtain a warrant for Toy's arrest. The simple fact is that on the sparse information at the officers' command, no arrest warrant could have issued consistently with Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 486, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503.
The arrest warrant procedure serves to insure that the deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer will be interposed between the citizen and the police, to assess the weight and credibility of the information which the complaining officer adduces as probable cause. Cf. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 270, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697. To hold that an officer may act in his own, unchecked discretion upon information too vague and from too untested a source to permit a judicial officer to accept it as probable cause for an arrest warrant, would subvert this fundamental policy.
The Government contends, however, that any defects in the information which somehow took the officers to petitioner Toy's laundry were remedied by events which occurred after they arrived. Specifically, it is urged that Toy's flight down the hall when the supposed customer at the door revealed that he was a narcotics agent adequately corroborates the suspicion generated by Hom Way's accusation. Our holding in Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332, is relevant here, and exposes the fallacy of this contention. We noted in that case that the lawfulness of an officer's entry to arrest without a warrant 'must be tested by criteria identical with those embodied in 18 U.S.C. 3109, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3109, which deals with entry to execute a search warrant.' 357 U.S. at 306, 78 S.Ct. at 1194. That statute requires that an officer must state his authority and his purpose at the threshold, and be refused admittance, before he may break open the door. We held that when an officer insufficiently or unclearly identifies his office or his mission, the occupant's flight from the door must be regarded as ambiguous conduct. We expressly reserved the question 'whether the unqualified requirements of the rule admit of an exception justifying noncompliance in exigent circumstances.' 357 U.S. at 309, 78 S.Ct. at 1196. In the instant case, Toy's flight from the door afforded no surer an inference of guilty knowledge than did the suspect's conduct in the Miller case. Agent Wong did eventually disclose that he was a narcotics officer. However, he affirmatively misrepresented his mission at the outset, by stating that he had come for laundry and dry cleaning. And before Toy filed, the officer never adequately dispelled the misimpression engendered by his own ruse. Cf. Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647; Gatewood v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 226, 209 F.2d 789.
Moreover, he made no effort at that time, nor indeed at any time thereafter, to ascertain whether the man at the door was the 'Blackie Toy' named by Hom Way. Therefore, this is not the case we hypothesized in Miller where 'without an express announcement of purpose, the facts known to officers would justify them in being virtually certain' that the person at the door knows their purpose. 357 U.S. at 310, 78 S.Ct. at 1196. Toy's refusal to admit the officers and his flight down the hallway thus signified a guilty knowledge no more clearly than it did a natural desire to repel an apparently unauthorized intrusion.
Here, as in Miller, the Government claims no extraordinary circumstancessuch as the imminent destruction of vital evidence, or the need to rescue a victim in perilsee 357 U.S., at 309, 78 S.Ct. 1195which excused the officer's failure truthfully to state his mission before he broke in.
A contrary holding here would mean that a vague suspicion could be transformed into probable cause for arrest by reason of ambiguous conduct which the arresting officers themselves have provoked. Cf. Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 104, 80 S.Ct. 168, 172, 4 L.Ed.2d 134. That result would have the same essential vice as a proposition we have consistently rejectedthat a search unlawful at its inception may be validated by what it turns up. Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28, 47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L.Ed. 520; United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595, 68 S.Ct. 222, 228, 92 L.Ed. 210. Thus we conclude that the Court of Appeals' finding that the officers' uninvited entry into Toy's living quarters was unlawful and that the bedroom arrest which followed was likewise unlawful, was fully justified on the evidence. It remains to be seen what consequences flow from this conclusion.
The exclusionary rule has traditionally barred from trial physical, tangible materials obtained either during or as a direct result of an unlawful invasion. It follows from our holding in Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734, that the Fourth Amendment may protect against the overhearing of verbal statements as well as against the more traditional seizure of 'papers and effects.' Similarly, testimony as to matters observed during an unlawful invasion has been excluded in order to enforce the basic constitutional policies. McGinnis v. United States, 1 Cir., 227 F.2d 598. Thus, verbal evidence which derives so immediately from an unlawful entry and an unauthorized arrest as the officers' action in the present case is no less the 'fruit' of official illegality than the more common tangible fruits of the unwarranted intrusion.
See Nueslein v. District of Columbia, 73 App.D.C. 85, 115 F.2d 690. Nor do the policies underlying the exclusionary rule invite any logical distinction between physical and verbal evidence. Either in terms of deterring lawless conduct by federal officers, Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214, 76 S.Ct. 292, 100 L.Ed. 233, or of closing the doors of the federal courts to any use of evidence unconstitutionally obtained, Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669, the danger in relaxing the exclusionary rules in the case of verbal evidence would seem too great to warrant introducing such a distinction.
The Government argues that Toy's statements to the officers in his bedroom, although closely consequent upon the invasion which we hold unlawful, were nevertheless admissible because they resulted from 'an intervening independent act of a free will.' This contention, however, takes insufficient account of the circumstances. Six or seven officers had broken the door and followed on Toy's heels into the bedroom where his wife and child were sleeping. He had been almost immediately handcuffed and arrested. Under such circumstances it is unreasonable to infer that Toy's response was sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion.
The Government also contends that Toy's declarations should be admissible because they were ostensibly exculpatory rather than incriminating. There are two answers to this argument. First, the statements soon turned out to be incriminating, for they led directly to the evidence which implicated Toy. Second, when circumstances are shown such as those which induced these declarations, it is immaterial whether the declarations be termed 'exculpatory.'
We observed in Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 153, 75 S.Ct. 194, 197, 99 L.Ed. 192, that the requirement of corroboration is rooted in 'a long history of judicial experience with confessions and in the realization that sound law enforcement requires police investigations which extend beyond the words of the accused.' In Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 8990, 75 S.Ct. 158, 162163, 99 L.Ed. 101, we elaborated the reasons for the requirement:
It is true that in Smith v. United States, supra, we held that although 'corroboration is necessary for all elements of the offense established by admissions alone,' extrinsic proof was sufficient which 'merely fortifies the truth of the confession, without independently establishing the crime charged * * *.' 348 U.S. at 156, 75 S.Ct. at 199.
However, Wong Sun's unsigned confession does not furnish competent corroborative evidence. The second governing principle, likewise well settled in our decisions, is that an out-of-court declaration made after arrest may not be used at trial against one of the declarant's partners in crime. While such a statement is 'admissible against the others where it is in furtherance of the criminal undertaking * * * all such responsibility is at an end when the conspiracy ends.' Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211, 217, 67 S.Ct. 224, 227, 91 L.Ed. 196. We have consistently refused to broaden that very narrow exception to the traditional hearsay rule which admits statements of a codefendant made in furtherance of a conspiracy or joint undertaking.
See Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 443445, 69 S.Ct. 716, 718719, 93 L.Ed. 790. And where postconspiracy declarations have been admitted, we have carefully ascertained that limiting instructions kept the jury from considering the contents with respect to the guilt of anyone but the declarant. Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 618619, 73 S.Ct. 481, 489490, 97 L.Ed. 593; Delli Paoli v. United States, 352 U.S. 232, 236237, 77 S.Ct. 294, 297, 1 L.Ed.2d 278. We have never ruled squarely on the question presented here, whether a codefendant's statement might serve to corroborate even where it will not suffice to convict.
We see no warrant for a different result so long as the rule which regulates the use of out-of-court statements is one of admissibility, rather than simply of weight, of the evidence. The import of our previous holdings is that a co-conspirator's hearsay statements may be admitted against the accused for no purpose whatever, unless made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Thus as to Toy the only possible source of corroboration is removed and his conviction must be set aside for lack of competent evidence to support it.
We must then consider the admissibility of the narcotics surrendered by Yee. Our holding, supra, that this ounce of heroin was inadmissible against Toy does not compel a like result with respect to Wong Sun. The exclusion of the narcotics as to Toy was required solely by their tainted relationship to information unlawfully obtained from Toy, and not by any official impropriety connected with their surrender by Yee. The seizure of this heroin invaded no right of privacy of person or premises which would entitle Wong Sun to object to its use at his trial. Cf. Goldstein v. United States, 316 U.S. 114, 62 S.Ct. 1000, 86 L.Ed. 1312.
Surely, under the narcotics statute, the discovery of heroin raises a presumption that someonegenerally the possessorviolated the law. As to him, once possession alone is proved, the other elements of the offensetransportation and concealment with knowledge of the illegal importation of the drugneed not be separately demonstrated, much less corroborated. 21 U.S.C. 174, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. Thus particular care ought to be taken in this area, when the crucial element of the accused's possession is proved solely by his own admissions, that the requisite corroboration be found among the evidence which is properly before the trier of facts. We therefore hold that petitioner Wong Sun is also entitled to a new trial.
I have driven WONG SUN out to JOHNNY YEE's house about 5 times altogether. Each time WONG SUN gave me $10 or $15 for doing it and also, Johnny gave me a little heroinenough to put in 3 or 4 cigarettes. The last time I drove WONG SUN out to YEE's house was last Tuesday, May 26, 1959. On Wednesday night June 3, 1959, at about 10:00 p.m., I called JOHNNY YEE and told him that 'I'm coming out pretty soonI don't have anything.' He said okay, so I drove out there. When I got there I went in the house and Johnny gave me a paper of heroin. The bindle had about enough for 5 or 6 cigarettes. I didn't give him any money and he didn't ask for any. He gives it to me just out of friendship. He has given me heroin like this quite a few times. I don't remember how many times. I have known HOM WEI about 2 or 3 years but I have never dealt in narcotics with him. I have known ED FONG about 1 year and I have never dealt in narcotics with him, either. I have heard people that I know in the Hop Sing Tong Club talk about HOM WEI dealing in narcotics but nothing about ED FONG. I do not know JOHN MOW LIM or BILL FONG. The only connection I have now is JOHNNY YEE.
Shortly after returning to San Francisco, JAMES told me he wanted me to get a piece. I asked him who it was for and he told me it was for JOHNNY. He gave me $450 and I obtained a piece of heroin from BILL. I did this on approximately 8 occasions, however, at least one of these times the heroin was not for JOHNNYfor another friend of JAMES TOY. JOHNNY would pay JAMES $600 for each piece.
About 4 days before I was arrested (arrested on June 4, 1959) JAMES called me at home about 7 o'clock in the evening and told me to come by. I went to the laundry and JAMES told me to get a piece. I called BILL and arranged to meet him. JAMES gave me $450 which I gave to BILL when I met him. BILL called me about one hour later at the laundry and I met him. He gave me one piece, which I gave to JAMES, and JAMES immediately thereafter called JOHNNY. We drove to 60611th Ave. at approximately midnight and JAMES gave the piece to JOHNNY. It was contained in a rubber contraceptive in a small brown paper bag.
Again on June 3rd, the night before I was arrested, I met JAMES at the laundry, prior to 11 o'clock in the evening, and JAMES telephoned JOHNNY at EV69336. Then we went out to JOHNNY's and smoked heroin and also had one paper for our own use later. We were there approximately 1/2 hour and then left.
'The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Any assumption that evidence sufficient to support a magistrate's disinterested determination to issue a search warrant will justify the officers in making a search without a warrant would reduce the Amendment to a nullity and leave the people's homes secure only in the discretion of police officers.' Pp. 1314, 68 S.Ct. p. 369. And see Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 615616, 81 S.Ct. 776, 779, 5 L.Ed.2d 828.
The Court has made a Chinese puzzle out of this simple case involving four participants: Hom Way, Blackie Toy, Johnny Yee and 'Sea Dog' Sun. In setting aside the convictions of Toy and Sun it has dashed to pieces the heretofore recognized standards of probable cause necessary to secure an arrest warrant or to make an arrest without one. Instead of dealing with probable cause as involving 'probabilities,' 'the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act,' Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1310, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949), the Court sets up rigid, mechanical standards, applying the 2020 vision of hind-sight in an area where the ambiguity and immediacy inherent in unexpected arrest are present. While probable cause must be based on more than mere suspicion, Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 104, 80 S.Ct. 168, 172, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959), it does not require proof sufficient to establish guilt. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 312, 79 S.Ct. 329, 332, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959). The sole requirement heretofore has been that the knowledge in the hands of the officers at the time of arrest must support a 'man of reasonable caution in the belief' that the subject had committed narcotic offenses. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162, 45 S.Ct. 280, 288, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). That decision is faced initially not in the courtroom but at the scene of arrest where the totality of the circumstances facing the officer is weighed against his split-second decision to make the arrest. This is an everyday occurrence facing law enforcement officers, and the unrealistic, enlarged standards announced here place an unnecessarily heavy hand upon them. I therefore dissent.
The first character in this affair is Hom Way, who was arrested in possession of narcotics and told the officers early that morning that he had purchased an ounce of heroin on the previous night from Blackie Toy, who operated a laundry on Leavenworth Street. Narcotics agents, armed with this information from a person they had known for six weeks and who was under arrest for possession of narcotics, immediately sought out Blackie Toy, the second character. The laundry was located without difficulty (as far as the record shows) from the information furnished by Hom Way. The Court gratuitously reads into the record its supposition that Hom Way 'merely invited the officers to roam the length of Leavenworth Street (some 30 blocks) in search of one 'Blackie Toy's' laundry * * *.' On the contrary, the identification of 'Blackie' and the directions to his laundry were sufficiently accurate for the officerstwo of whom were of Chinese ancestryto find Blackie at his laundry within an hour. I cannot say in the face of this record that this was a 'roaming' performance up and down Leavenworth Street. To me it was efficient police work by officers familiar with San Francisco and the habits and practices of its Chinese-American inhabitants. Indeed, the information was much more explicit than that approved by this Court in Draper v. United States, supra.
was under arrest when he implicated himself in the purchase of an ounce of heroin the previous night. Since he was in possession of narcotics and his information related to a narcotics sale in which he was the buyer, the officers had good reason to rely on Hom Way's knowledge. See Rodgers v. United States, 267 F.2d 79 (C.A.9th Cir., 1959), and Thomas v. United States, 281 F.2d 132 (C.A.8th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 904, 81 S.Ct. 239, 5 L.Ed.2d 196 (1960). As to his credibility, he was confronted with prosecution for possession of narcotics and well knew that any discrepancies in his story might go hard with him. Furthermore, the statement was a declaration against interest which stripped Hom Way of any explanation for his possession of narcotics and made certain the presumption of 21 U.S.C. 174, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. I do not see what stronger and more reliable information one could have to establish probable cause for the arrest without warrant of Blackie Toy.
But even assuming there was no probable cause at this point, the Government produced additional evidence to support the lawfulness of Backie's arrest. In broad daylight, about 6:30 on the same morning that Hom Way was arrested, one of the officers of Chinese ancestry, Agent Alton Wong, knocked on Blackie Toy's laundry door. When Wong told him that he wanted laundry, Blackie opened the door and advised him to return at 8 a.m. Wong testified that he then 'pulled out (his) badge' and announced that he was a narcotics agent. Blackie slammed the door in Wong's face and ran down the hall of the laundry. Wong broke through the door after himcalling again that he was 'a narcotics Treasury agent.' Only when Blackie reached the family bedroom was Wong able to arrest him, as he reached into a nightstand drawer, apparently looking for narcotics. Agent Wong immediately confronted him with Hom Way's accusation that Blackie Toy had sold him narcotics. Blackie denied selling narcotics, but he did not deny knowing Hom Way and later admitted knowing him. There is no basis in Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958), for the Court's conclusion that Blackie's flight 'signified * * * a natural desire (by Toy) to repel an apparently unauthorized intrusion. * * *' As I see it this is incredible in the light of the record. Nor is there any support in the record that 'before Toy fled, the officer never adequately dispelled the misimpression engendered by his own ruse.' On the contrary the officer's showing of his badge and announcement that he was a narcotics agent immediately put Blackie in flight behind the slamming door. To conclude otherwise takes all prizes as a non sequitur. As he pursued, Wong continued to identify himself as a narcotics agent. I ask, how could he more clearly announce himself and his purpose?
This Court has often held unexplained flightas herefrom an officer to be strong evidence of guilt. E.g., Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694, 51 S.Ct. 240, 75 L.Ed. 629 (1931); Brinegar v. United States, supra, 338 U.S. at p. 166, n. 7, 69 S.Ct. 1306; see Henry v. United States, supra, where the Court was careful to distinguish its facts from those of 'fleeing men or men acting furtively.' 361 U.S. at 103, 80 S.Ct. at 172. Moreover, as the Government has always emphasized, this is particularly true in narcotics cases where delay may have serious consequences, i.e., the hiding or destruction of the drugs. This Court noted without disapproval in Miller v. United States, supra, the state decisions holding that 'justification for noncompliance (with the rule) exists in exigent circumstances, as, for example, when the officers may in good faith believe * * * that the person to be arrested is fleeing or attempting to destroy evidence. People v. Maddox, 46 Cal.2d 301, 294 P.2d 6.' 357 U.S. at 309, 78 S.Ct. at 1196. And the Court continued, 'It may be that, without an express announcement of purpose, the facts known to officers would justify them in being virtually certain that the petitioner already knows their purpose so that an announcement would be a useless gesture. Cf. People v. Martin, 45 Cal.2d 755, 290 P.2d 855; Wilgus, Arrest Without a Warrant, 22 Mich.L.Rev. 541, 798, 802 (1924).' Id. at 310, 78 S.Ct. at 1196.
The information from Hom Way and Blackie Toy's unexplained flight cannot be viewed 'in two separate, logic-tight compartments. * * * (T)ogether they composed a picture meaningful to a trained, experienced observer.' Christensen v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 35, 36, 259 F.2d 192, 193 (1958). I submit that the officers as reasonable men properly concluded that the petitioner was the 'Blackie Toy' who Hom Way informed them had committed a felony and that his immediate arrestas he ran through his hallwas lawful and was imperative in order to prevent his escape. In view of this there is no 'poisonous tree' whose fruits we must evaluate, and Blackie's declaration at the time of the arrest and the narcotics found in Yee's possession are admissible in evidence. The trial court found that evidence sufficiently corroborative of Toy's confession, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. For the same reasons discussed, infra, as to Wong Sun, I see no occasion to overturn these consistent findings of two courts.
As to 'Sea Dog,' Wong Sun, there is no disagreement that his confession and the narcotics found in Yee's possession were admissible in evidence against him. The question remains as to whether there was sufficient independent evidence to corroborate the confession. Such evidence 'does not have to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a preponderance * * *.' Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 156, 75 S.Ct. 194, 199, 99 L.Ed. 192 (1954). The requirement is satisfied 'if the corroboration merely fortifies the truth of the confession, without independently establishing the crime charged * * *.' Ibid; see also Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101 (1954). Wong Sun's confession stated in part that about four days before his arrest he and Toy delivered an ounce of heroin to Yee and that on the night before his arrestthe night of June 3, 1959he and Toy smoked some heroin at Yee's house. On June 4, 1959, the officers found at Yee's residence quantities of heroin totaling 'just less than one ounce.' In light of this evidence, I am unable to say that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Wong Sun's confession was sufficiently corroborated.
21 U.S.C. 174, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174:
26 U.S.C. 7607, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7607:
'The Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant to the Commissioner, and agents, of the Bureau of Narcotics of the Department of the Treasury, and officers of the customs (as defined in section 401(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended; 19 U.S.C., sec. 1401(1)), may
See Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 485487, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 12491250, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503; Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 1617, 68 S.Ct. 367, 370, 92 L.Ed. 436. See generally Wilgus, Arrest Without a Warrant, 22 Mich.L.Rev. 541, 673, 695701 (1924).
Our discussion implies no view whether a search warrant should be obtained where a search is conducted incident to a valid arrest, cf. United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653, for nothing in this case turns on the presence or absence of a search warrant. Since the officers had obtained an arrest warrant in Rabinowitz, the question before us here was not there presented. As to the question before us, see Wrightson v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 390, 222 F.2d 556, 559560:
'But, if officers can arrest without a warrant and never be required to disclose the facts upon which they based their belief of probable causeif, in other words, they have an untouchable power to arrest without a warrant,way would they ever bother to get a warrant? And the same obvious conclusion follows if the courts, when an arrest is attacked as illegal, will assume, without facts, that an arrest without a warrant was for probable cause. To strike down all factual requirements in respect to probable cause for arrests without a warrant, while maintaining them for the issuance of a warrant, would be to blast one of the support columns of justice by law.'
We noted in Giordenello that Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that an arrest warrant shall issue only upon a sworn complaint setting forth 'the essential facts constituting the offense charged,' and showing 'that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant has committed it * * *.' The Fourth Amendment, from which the requirements of the Rules derive, provides that '* * * no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing * * * the persons or things to be seized.' (Emphasis added.) The requirement applies both to arrest and search warrants. A description of a suspect merely as 'Blackie Toy,' operator of a laundry somewhere on Leavenworth Street, hardly is information 'particularly describing * * * the person * * * to be seized.' Such information is no better than the wholesale or 'dragnet' search warrant, which we have condemned. See, e.g., Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196, 48 S.Ct. 74, 76, 72 L.Ed. 231; see generally Kaplan, Search and Seizure: A No-Man's Land in the Criminal Law, 49 Calif.L.Rev. 474, 480482 (1961).
See Kamisar, Illegal Searches or Seizures and Contemporaneous Incriminating Statements: A Dialogue on a Neglected Area of Criminal Procedure, 1961 U. of Ill.Law Forum 78, 8496. But compare Maguire, Evidence of Guilt (1959), 187190.
See Lord Devlin's comment: 'It is probable that even today, when there is much less ignorance about these matters than formerly, there is still a general belief that you must answer all questions put to you by a policeman, or at least that it will be the worse for you if you do not.' Devlin, The Criminal Prosecution in England (1958), 32. Even in the absence of such oppressive circumstances, and where an exclusionary rule rests principally on nonconstitutional grounds, we have sometimes refused to differentiate between voluntary and involuntary declarations. See Hogan and Snee, The McNabb-Mallory Rule: Its Rise, Rationale and Rescue, 47 Geo.L.J. 1, 2627 (1958). For illustrative situations where a voluntary act of the accused has been held insufficient to cure the otherwise unlawful acquisition of evidence, see Bynum v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 262 F.2d 465 (holding inadmissible fingerprints made by defendant after unlawful arrest); United States v. Watson, D.C., 189 F.Supp. 776 (excluding narcotics voluntarily surrendered by accused in the course of an unauthorized search). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from which the instant case comes has recognized in an analogous context, that 'all declarations and statements under the compulsion of the things so seized, are affected by the vice of primary illegality. * * *' Takahashi v. United States, 143 F.2d 118, 122.
For the history and development of the corroboration requirement, see 7 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940), §§ 20702071; Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant's Confession, 103 U. of Pa.L.Rev. 638649 (1955). For the present scope and application of the rule, see 2 Underhill, Criminal Evidence (5th ed. 1956), §§ 402403. For a comprehensive collection of cases, see Annot., 45 A.L.R.2d 1316 (1956).
See Developments in the LawCriminal Conspiracy, 72 Harv.L.Rev. 922, 989990 (1959).