Opinion ID: 3034529
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Established Law

Text: It is established law under Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985), and Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969), that fingerprints taken for purely investigatory purposes must be suppressed. It is also established law under Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963), that not only evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but also evidence “come at by exploitation of the illegality,” must be suppressed. Id. at 488. Under Hayes, Davis, and Wong Sun, this is a very simple case. We all agree that Detective Anderson took Ortiz- Hernandez’s fingerprint exemplars for an illegal investigatory purpose. We also agree that, because of the Fourth Amendment violation, the fingerprint exemplars must be suppressed. Further, it is undisputed that the exemplars taken by Detective Anderson led directly to the discovery that Ortiz-Hernandez could be charged with illegal reentry into the United States. Without the Fourth Amendment violation, Ortiz-Hernandez would not be standing trial for illegal reentry and the government would neither need nor want additional fingerprint exemplars.