Opinion ID: 2982127
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dunn’s Confession

Text: Dunn moves to suppress his confession. Although the confession was obtained after he was properly advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Dunn claims that the confession was the fruit of the poisonous tree, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 491 (1963). Because, he claims, the search of the apartment and the arrest of Evans were unlawful, his confession should be excluded under the rule of Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603 (1975). 13 Case: 12-6175 Document: 006111909876 Filed: 12/16/2013 Page: 14 Nos. 12-6175/12-6187/12-6324 Because we find that neither the search nor the arrest of Evans was unlawful, Dunn’s argument for suppression is effectively precluded and we need not address it.