Opinion ID: 6938606
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Addendum Confession

Text: The detectives accepted Craig’s addendum confession after the illegal arrest. Craig challenges the admissibility of this confession on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Florida state courts did not afford Craig a full and complete hearing of his Fourth Amendment claim. The state court did not address the Fourth Amendment claim so Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976), does not preclude review. Craig contends that the addendum confession is a fruit of his illegal arrest that must be suppressed under Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 102 S.Ct. 2664, 73 L.Ed.2d 314 (1982). The case here falls squarely within the rule announced in Taylor. Officials arrested Taylor on an uncor roborated tip from a prisoner. Id. at 688-89, 102 S.Ct. at 2666. He was read his Miranda rights and he executed a written confession. Id. at 689, 102 S.Ct. at 2666. The Court held that Taylor had been illegally arrested because the officials lacked probable cause. Id. The Court concluded that a confession resulting from custodial interrogation following an illegal arrest must be excluded from evidence unless “intervening events break the causal connection” between the confession and the illegal arrest so that the confession is “sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint.” Id. at 690, 102 S.Ct. at 2667 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 602, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975)). In determining whether the taint has been purged, the Court should examine: (1) the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession; (2) the presence of intervening-circumstances; and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. Id. at 690, 102 S.Ct. at 2666-67. The state bears the burden of proving that a confession is admissible. Id. An examination of these factors shows that the addendum confession is inadmissible. First, there was no significant lapse in time. The addendum confession occurred approximately two hours after the illegal arrest. In Brown, 422 U.S. at 604-05, 95 S.Ct. at 2262-63, the officials obtained the incriminating statements within two hours, the same length of time involved here. Second, no intervening circumstances were shown to be present to dissipate the effect of the unlawful arrest. Third, the officers did not participate in flagrant misconduct, but they had no basis for the arrest. This is shown in the testimony of Ms. Henghold, the prosecutor, and Detective Singer. The district court concluded that the admission of the addendum confession was proper by focusing on the voluntariness of it. Although voluntariness may be sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the Fifth Amendment, it is only a threshold finding for the Fourth Amendment claim. Taylor, 457 U.S. at 690, 102 S.Ct.. at 2666-67. “In order for the causal chain, between the illegal arrest and the statements made subsequent thereto, to be broken, Wong Sun requires not merely that the statement meet the Fifth Amendment standard of voluntariness but that it be ‘sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint.’ ” Brown, 422 U.S. at 602, 95 S.Ct. at 2261 (quoting Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471, 486, 83 S.Ct. 407, 416-17, 9 L.Ed.2d 441). Craig was arrested without probable cause. He confessed shortly after without any significant intervening event. The illegal arrest prohibited the addendum confession from being an act of free will. The state has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the admission of the addendum confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The state had little other evidence against Craig, only the testimony of Henry Lee and Laverne Bailey. Bailey failed to identify Craig in a lineup two weeks after the alleged crime. The in-court identification occurred in a courtroom where Craig was the only African-American male on trial. Henry Lee was a participant in the crime and had a motive to protect himself. We cannot say that the admission of the confession was harmless error, REVERSED with direction to grant the writ subject to right of the state to conduct a timely retrial.