Opinion ID: 2981234
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Purpose and Flagrancy of Police Misconduct

Text: In determining the purpose and flagrancy of police misconduct, we consider whether the arrest was investigatory by design and execution and also whether the arrest was calculated to “cause surprise, fright, and confusion.” Wolfe, 166 F. App’x at 236 (citing Brown, 422 U.S. at 605). An investigatory arrest is prohibited in the absence of probable cause. Shaw, 464F.3d at 631; see also Brown, 422 U.S. at 606 (finding the arrest investigatory because “the detectives embarked upon this expedition for evidence in the hope that something might turn up”). Moreover, a finding of “‘purposeful and flagrant’ misconduct is not limited to situations where the police act in an outright threatening or coercive manner.” Shaw, 464 F.3d at 630; see Dunaway, 442 U.S. at 218-19. - 13 - No. 11-1331 United States v. Watson The district court found that the officers’ misconduct was purposeful and flagrant. Purposefulness was found on the basis that officers purposefully entered the home without a warrant, without probable cause to arrest, and lacking exigent circumstances. Id. The district court reasoned that the officers’ misconduct was flagrant because after they arrested Watson their “full intent . . . was to question him after the search had taken place.” Id. The district court’s conclusion was correct. In sum, while Watson’s post-arrest statements were voluntary, the remaining Brown factors do not support a finding that there was sufficient attenuation between the arrest and his statements to purge the primary taint.