Opinion ID: 1443358
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the purposes and flagrancy of the official misconduct

Text: The last of the three factors, `the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct,' is `particularly important' because it comes closest to satisfying the `deterrence rationale for application of the exclusionary rule.' United States v. George, 883 F.2d 1407, 1416 (9th Cir.1989), citing United States v. Perez-Esparza, 609 F.2d 1284, 1289 (9th Cir.1979). This factor has been decisive most often in those cases where police officers did not have probable cause to effectuate an arrest, but instead took a suspect into custody hoping that an interrogation would yield incriminating statements. E.g. Brown, 422 U.S. at 604-05; 95 S.Ct. at 2262-63; cf. United States v. Howard, 828 F.2d 552, 556 (9th Cir.1987). United States v. George, 883 F.2d at 1416. In Brown v. Illinois, the Supreme Court explained why the illegal arrest had a quality of purposefulness: The impropriety of the arrest was obvious; awareness of that fact was virtually conceded by the two detectives when they repeatedly acknowledged, in their testimony, that the purpose of their action was for investigation or for questioning. The arrest, both in design and in execution, was investigatory. The detectives embarked upon this expedition for evidence in the hope that something might turn up. The manner in which Brown's arrest was effected gives the appearance of having been calculated to cause surprise, fright, and confusion. Brown, 422 U.S. at 605, 95 S.Ct. at 2262 (1975) (footnotes & citations omitted). It appears that in this case, as in Brown, the seizing officers (Killeen and Pfeifer) were on a fishing expedition. While Killeen testified at trial that the only suspects were Bainbridge and Sivak, trial testimony from Detective Pfeifer and Officer Sprague (the reporting officer) indicates something quite different. Pfeifer testified that at the time Bainbridge was seized there were four or five suspects and nothing distinguished Bainbridge from the other suspects. Officer Sprague also testified that there were a few different suspects at this time. The record corroborates Pfeifer and Spragues' testimony. At the time Bainbridge was seized, Sivak had not even been arrested. There was, however, nothing in the manner of the action of the officers seizing Bainbridge to instill surprise, fright or confusion, although Bainbridge stated, as noted, that he was frightened.