Opinion ID: 1190451
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exploitation of the Alleged Abuse

Text: We now turn to defendant's claim that his incriminating statements were constitutionally tainted by police misconduct that occurred when he was arrested. In determining the validity of a confession or incriminating statements following police illegality, two inquiries must be made. [20] First, the court must determine voluntariness, i.e., whether the confession was voluntary; second, the court must determine attenuation, i.e., whether the confession was obtained in the course of police exploitation of the prior illegality or, in other words, whether the voluntary confession was sufficiently attenuated from the prior police misconduct to remove any taint. [21] The confession must meet both tests to be admissible. [22]
In the face of a challenge to the voluntariness of a statement or confession, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was made voluntarily based upon the totality of the circumstances. [23] As was observed in State v. Bishop , the inquiry into voluntariness is never mechanical, but must duly consider both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation. [24] The ultimate inquiry is, of course, whether physical or psychological force or other improper threats or promises prompted the accused to talk when he otherwise would not have done so. [25] In light of these standards, the trial court's determination that defendant's inculpatory statements were voluntarily made is amply supported by the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing. Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his statements rests solely on the alleged abuse he received when he was arrested a day and a half prior to the interview. He does not allege that any coercion occurred during the interview itself, nor does the record suggest any. Once he was placed in jail, he had no further contact with the arresting officers except for Sheriff Printz. Prior to questioning, Hines, in the presence of Printz, informed defendant of his Miranda rights, which we have held constitutionally sufficient. Defendant himself testified at the suppression hearing that he was never physically afraid during the interview and that Hines made no threats or promises to induce him to talk. Based on these facts, we conclude that defendant voluntarily made the statements. [26]
Our analysis does not end here. Regardless of whether defendant's statements were voluntary, we must also determine whether they were obtained in the course of police illegality. [27] In Arroyo, we noted four factors that courts should consider when determining whether a voluntary confession is constitutionally tainted by prior or police misconduct: whether Miranda warnings were given, the temporal proximity of the illegality and the confession, the absence or presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. [28] Assuming, without deciding, that the arrest was illegal or at least accompanied by police misconduct, defendant's statements were sufficiently attenuated from the alleged misconduct to remove any taint. Defendant was informed of his Miranda rights, and he understood that he could refuse to answer any questions during the interview which resulted in incriminating statements. He made the incriminating statements a day and a half after the arrest  a sufficient period of time for the tension that arose during the arrest to subside considerably, if not completely. Nothing in the record indicates that the alleged misconduct was to aid in the investigation. Nor does the record indicate that the behavior of the officers in arresting defendant was flagrant, in light of his belligerence and uncooperative attitude. Finally, the Montana officers appear to have crossed into Idaho to make the arrest because they believed they were in hot pursuit, and defendant suggests no other motive. In sum, even if the officers' actions in arresting defendant were improper, his statements were voluntarily made and not tainted by the events that occurred during his arrest.