Opinion ID: 2024051
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: other evidence of guilt

Text: Finally, because it is clear that Fitch was convicted upon erroneously admitted evidence, we must determine whether there was evidence of Fitch's guilt other than that which was seized pursuant to the invalid search warrant. The record reveals that the only evidence of Fitch's guilt, other than that which was seized pursuant to the invalid warrant, was a statement that Fitch gave to the police at approximately 12:20 a.m. on April 20, 1996. The evidence established that Fitch returned to the residence shortly after the police arrived and that Fitch was present when the officers executed the search warrant. During the course of the search, the officers found and seized a metal container in Fitch's bedroom containing several bags of marijuana, a scale, a ledger, and rolled-up money. Subsequent to this discovery, Fitch was arrested. After booking Fitch and giving him Miranda warnings, the police then proceeded to question Fitch at the police station. Immediately after giving the Miranda warnings, the investigating officer explained the probable cause for the arrest, to which Fitch replied, Well it looks like you got me good. Fitch then gave a handwritten statement to the police incriminating himself with respect to the seized marijuana and other items of evidence. The issue we must resolve is whether Fitch's custodial statement is admissible evidence or whether the evidence should have been suppressed because it was the product of the illegal search, or as condemned by Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), the `fruit of the poisonous tree.' In Wong Sun v. United States , the U.S. Supreme Court required exclusion not only of evidence directly produced by a constitutionally invalid search but also of evidence indirectly derived from the unconstitutional search. State v. Abdouch, 230 Neb. 929, 434 N.W.2d 317 (1989). Reference to fruit of the poisonous tree in Wong Sun v. United States, supra , is a condemnation of the government's subsequent exploitation of a prior violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. State v. Abdouch, supra . As noted previously, a violation of a defendant's important rights under § 29-814.04 is no less deserving of appropriate application of the exclusionary rule. Whether evidence is the derivative product of an invalid search turns on the question whether the evidence was obtained by exploitation of the illegal search or, instead, by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the taint of the illegal search. See State v. Abdouch, supra . In the typical case in which the defendant was present when incriminating evidence was found in an illegal search ... it is apparent that there has been an `exploitation of that illegality' when the police subsequently question the defendant about that evidence or the crime to which it relates. This is because `the realization that the cat is out of the bag plays a significant role in encouraging the suspect to speak.' .... ... [I]t is crystal clear that giving the defendant the Miranda warnings will not break the causal chain between an illegal search and a subsequent confession.... Id. at 945-46, 434 N.W.2d at 327-28 (quoting 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search & Seizure, a Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, § 11.4(c) (2d ed.1987)). Based on the foregoing, despite the fact that the Miranda warnings were given to Fitch before he gave his statement to the police, because Fitch was present when incriminating evidence was found in the illegal search of his residence, Fitch undoubtedly recognized the futility of remaining silent when he gave a written statement further incriminating himself with respect to the seized marijuana. See State v. Abdouch, supra . Thus, we conclude that Fitch's custodial statement was obtained as an exploitation of the invalid search and seizure of evidence at his residence, thereby rendering his custodial statement a fruit of the poisonous tree. Wong Sun v. United States, supra . Because Fitch properly filed a motion to suppress the statement and because there is no evidence of Fitch's guilt other than that which was seized pursuant to the invalid warrant, we determine that Fitch's conviction should be reversed and this cause remanded to the district court with directions to vacate Fitch's conviction and dismiss the charge against him.