Opinion ID: 662299
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: tilmon's arrest

Text: 9 Tilmon first contends that LASD officers arrested him without probable cause. However, [w]e need not determine whether probable cause supported [a defendant's] arrest [when] we conclude that no evidence admitted at his trial was the fruit of that arrest. United States v. Sitton, 968 F.2d 947, 954 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 478 and 113 S.Ct. 1306 (1992). Standing alone, illegal arrest or detention does not void a subsequent conviction. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975); see also INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039 (1984). While physical evidence and statements obtained as a result of such an arrest must be suppressed, United States v. Alvarez, 810 F.2d 879, 884 (9th Cir.1987), no such statements or evidence are at issue in this case. 4 Thus, we cannot reverse Tilmon's conviction on that ground.