Document: 445 U.S. 463 100 S.Ct. 1244 63 L.Ed.2d 537 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Keith CREWS. No. 78-777. Argued Oct. 31, 1979. Decided March 25, 1980. Syllabus Immediately after being assaulted and robbed at gunpoint, the victim notified police gave them a full description of her assailant. Several days later, respondent, who matched suspect's description, was seen by around scene crime. After an attempt to photograph him proved unsuccessful, respondent taken into custody, ostensibly as suspected truant from school, detained headquarters, where he briefly questioned, photographed, then released. Thereafter, identified respondent's that Respondent again custody court-ordered lineup victim. indicted for armed robbery other offenses. On pretrial motion suppress all identification testimony, trial court found initial detention station constituted arrest without probable cause accordingly ruled products arrest—the photographic identifications—could not be introduced trial, but further held victim's ability identify in based upon independent recollection untainted intervening identifications therefore such testimony admissible. At once more assailant, convicted robbery. The District Columbia Court Appeals reversed, holding in-court should have been excluded product violation Fourth Amendment rights. Held : judgment is reversed. Pp. 470-477; 477; 477-479. D.C.App., 389 A.2d 277, Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion with respect Parts I, II-A, II-B, II-C, concluding that: 1 need suppressed fruit concededly unlawful admissible because police's knowledge identity recollections both antedated were thus constitutional violation. 470-474, 477. 2 (a) presence courtroom any misconduct. Her known long before there official misconduct, traceable 471-472. 3 (b) Nor did illegal infect give accurate testimony. she merely retrieved mnemonic representation assailant formed time crime, compared it figure courtroom, positively robber. 472-473. 4 (c) Insofar challenges his own cannot claim immunity prosecution simply appearance precipitated arrest. himself suppressible "fruit," illegality deprive Government opportunity prove guilt through introduction evidence wholly P. 474. 5 BRENNAN, joined STEWART STEVENS, concluded Part II-D decide whether person considered possible "fruit" since question yielded nothing evidentiary value already have. Respondent's served link together two extant ingredients identification. While exclusionary rule enjoins benefiting has unlawfully obtained, does reach backward taint information hands prior illegality. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 721, 89 1394, 22 676, distinguished. 474-477. 6 Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D. C., petitioner. 7 W. Gary Kohlman, respondent. 8 Court, except II-D. 9 We are called circumstances this case accused crime defendant's 10 * morning January 3, 1974, woman accosted gunpoint young man women's restroom on grounds Washington Monument. peering 4-inch crack between wall door stall occupied, asked $10 demanded let stall. When refused, robber pointed pistol over top repeated ultimatum. surrendered money, youth additional $10. opened purse showed had no cash, gained entry made sexual advances her. She tried resist pleaded leave. He eventually did, warning would shoot if wait least 20 minutes following out restroom. complied, leaving immediately reported incident police. 11 6, women similar episode same A threatened broken bottle, forced hand $20, departed, cautioning victims leave minutes. given these first victim: All three described their black male, 15-18 years old, approximately 5'5" 5'8" tall, slender build, very dark complexion smooth skin. 12 Three 9, Officer David Rayfield United States Park Police observed area Monument concession stand restrooms. Aware robberies previous week noting resemblance "lookout" perpetrator, officer partner approached respondent.1 officers name said 16 old. why replied just "walked away school."2 informed likeness questioning about those events. allowed leave, watched entered nearby 13 still inside, saw spoke James Dickens, tour guide previously having hanging day 3d In response officer's request observe left restroom, Dickens tentatively individual 14 basis information, him. Detective Earl Ore, investigator assigned robberies, summoned. Upon arrival some or 15 Ore attempted take Polaroid inclement weather conditions frustrated several efforts produce picture suitable display victims. truant. transported questioned him, obtained desired photograph, telephoned released never formally arrested charged offense, lasted than hour. day, 10, array eight photographs, including one Although viewed pictures suspects identifying selected 13, identification.3 21, identifications. grand jury returned indictment against February 22, charging counts robbery, count assault dangerous weapon.4 filed contending truancy charges pretext allow obtain investigation. hearing extensive victims, officers, headquarters cause.5 Accordingly, trial. But judge victims' identifications, April 23, victim, verdicts guilty charges.6 sentenced four years' probation under Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5010(a). 17 appeal, Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed conviction ordered suppression identification.7 277 (1978). its decision conventional application familiar "fruit poisonous tree" doctrine. See Wong Sun States, 371 471, 83 407, 441 (1963); Silverthorne Lumber Co. 251 385, 40 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920). upholding court's finding cause—a determination challenged Court8—the turned consideration what consequences ought flow deciding suppressed, analysis must focus "exploitation" "primary illegality" within meaning Sun, supra,9 principal issue behavior bore causal relationship acquisition answered affirmative, reasoning arrest, led subsequent complaining witnesses and, ultimately, case.10 Satisfied indirectly commonly advanced exceptions rule—the "independent source," "inevitable discovery," "attenuation" doctrines11—nonetheless justified admission. Finding inapplicable, granted certiorari. 440 907, 99 1213, 59 454 (1979). reverse. II supra, articulated guiding principle determining derivatively trial: "The prohibition extends well indirect direct invasions." U.S., 484, 416. supra; Weeks 232 383, 34 341, 58 652 (1914). As cases confirmed, sanction applies "fruits" violation—whether tangible, physical material actually seized search,12 items words overheard course activity,13 confessions statements during detention.14 19 typical case, however, acquired violation, chain causation proceeding conduct become so attenuated interrupted circumstance remove "taint" imposed original Thus most begin premise sense governmental activity. It Appeals' facts we find erroneous. distinct elements. First, present testify transpired offender, defendant culprit. Second, possesses reconstruct criminal occurrence observations And third, also physically can compare offender. our conclusion none elements "has come exploitation" 488, S.Ct., 417. A. 21 surely authorities attack next went view photographs suspects, voluntarily assisted investigation times. which witness' discovered cooperation secured only result search accused.15 Here B Based constructed mental image representation, defendant, robber.16 No part process affected language "time-worn metaphor" tree, Harrison 392 219, 222, 88 2008, 2010, 1047 (1968), toxin injected bud blossomed; poisoned. 23 This say identifications—both conceded fruits violation—could affect reliability render inadmissible well. Indeed, vagaries human memory inherent suggestibility many procedures,17 opposite may true. expressly rested encounter uninfluenced finds ample support record.18 short, capacity neither resulted nor biased committed developed capacity.19 C 24 An more, bar prosecution, defense valid conviction. Gerstein Pugh, 420 103, 119, 95 854, 865, 43 54 (1975); Frisbie Collins, 342 519, 72 509, 96 541 (1952); Ker Illinois, 119 436, 225, 30 421 (1886).20 delimits proof offer closing lawlessness. D* 25 argues, corpus itself species "evidence." singles declares, "That's me," physiognomy becomes something value, much like showing crime.21 And, contends crucial inquiry purposes available read essentially adopting order. A.2d, 285-287. 26 evidence, For record plainly discloses knew suspect involvement crimes charged. Moreover, they access "evidence" implicated i. e., representations retained related form agreement description. grasp.22 Rather, obtained; 27 different 676 (1969), connection illicit activity search. fingerprints detention. raped home, days, local rounded up scores youths, randomly stopping, interrogating, fingerprinting them. Davis' prints match set convicted. Had detention, suspect. Here, contrast, focused reasonable culpability. 28 Bynum 104 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 262 F.2d 465 (1958), cited approval Davis, 724, 1396, helpful Bynum, came down look brother, earlier while driving auto sought telling owned car, fingerprinted. Those later evidence. lacked Bynum's "something public caused yield detention." U.S.App.D.C., 370, F.2d, 467. noted 725-726, n. 4, 1396-1397, subsequently reindicted retrial older fingerprints, FBI file, way connected affirmed conviction, fingerprint FBI's possession tainted 107 109, 274 767 (1960). 29 parallels apparent: use introduced; admissible, even argument accepted, Reversed. 31 MARSHALL took case. 32 POWELL, whom BLACKMUN joins, concurring part. 33 I join Court's reject explicitly, rather appear open, face agree WHITE's view, post, 477-478, foreclosed rationale (1952), (1886). establish properly brought though illegally. Thus, tainted. WHITE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, result. 35 today holds unanimous reaching result, BRENNAN's reserves ever Because consider controlled write separately. 36 Crews whose recollection, Under manner irrelevant admissibility 522, 511, "that power try impaired fact jurisdiction" unlawfully. reason tantamount effectively insulates essential. Such inconsistent underlying retreated. Stone Powell, 428 465, 485, 3037, 3048, 49 1067 (1976); (1975). 37 occurred cause, understand opinion, might offense excluding otherwise untainted, unsupported decisions. do perceive dispensing requiring suspicion. 38 Assume X answers questions put Miranda warnings implicate Y tried. identifies courtroom; independent, basis. 39 my Brother opinion. eyewitness capable inevitable held, permissible Frisbie, despite Suppression required situation, here, regardless respective arrests suspicion short cause. leaves open think sufficiently although concur result.* note majority agrees forecloses testified suspicions aroused almost deserted park apparently aimless meanderings concessions area. Tr. 52. References transcript Superior Columbia. third review array, attend lineup. D.C.Code §§ 22-502, 22-2901, 22-3202 (1973). produced conflicting reasons asserted processed routine juvenile truant, procedure involves photographing calling school home determine 53-54. acknowledge, Id., 55, 57. Similarly, maintaining apprehended id., 61, 63, admitted intent trying could shown witnesses. 59. now justify charge, raise below. procedures followed conform practices superficially pursued matter. By token, disavowed existence "sham" "pretext" analyzed apprehension traditional 299-300, (D.C.1978). acquitted raised appeal 16, 1977, division originally 369 1063. months rehearing vacated judgment. Record 356. Brief 5, 4. "We hold 'fruit tree' light actions apt 'whether, granting establishment primary illegality, instant objection exploitation instead means distinguishable purged taint.' Maguire, Evidence Guilt, 221 (1959)." 487-488, "[T]he who, [respondent]; reapprehension, eventually, case." 289. Nardone 308 338, 60 266, 268, 84 307 (1939) (attenuation); 392, 183, (1920) (independent source); ex rel. Owens Twomey, 508 858, 865 (CA 1974) (inevitable discovery). E. g., Whiteley Warden, 401 560, 91 1031, 306 (1971); Sibron New York, 40, 1889, 917 (1968); Beck Ohio, 379 89, 85 223, 142 (1964). Giordano, 416 505, 94 1820, 341 (1974); see Silverman 365 81 679, 734 (1961); McGinnis 227 598 (CA1 1955). Dunaway 442 200, 2248, 824 (1979); Brown 422 590, 2254, 45 generally Ruffin, Out Limb Poisonous Tree: Tainted Witness, UCLA L.Rev. (1967). oral argument, undeveloped visible Oral Arg. 11-12. analogy comport precisely current psychological theories perception, see, e. Buckout, Eyewitness Testimony, Scientific American (Dec. 1974), analysis. See, Wall, Eye-Witness Identification Criminal Cases 40-64 (1965); Note, Did Your Eyes Deceive You? Expert Psychological Testimony Unreliability Identification, Stan.L.Rev. 969, 974-989 (1977). Wade, 388 218, 87 1926, 1149 (1967), enumerated factors applying origins" test. 241, 1939. Cf. Manson Brathwaite, 432 98, 97 2243, 53 140 (1977); Neil Biggers, 409 188, 93 375, (1972). attach particular significance case: close range period 5-10 excellent lighting distractions, 7, 111; closely 52, 59; failed anyone 8, twice hesitation nonsuggestive procedures, 9-11; passed observation 8-9. Our reliance witness out-of-court confrontations intended assign undermine rule's objectives denying benefit wrongfully obtained. assume extent indicate hence source." source" test Stovall Denno, 293, 1967, 1199 derived identical formulation 1939, seeks reliable satisfy due process, inapplicable context satisfactory resolution provide complete answer considerations concerns met. STEVENS. Blue, 384 251, 255, 86 1416, 1419, 510 (1966): "Our numerous precedents ordering exclusion illegally implicitly remedy extend barring altogether. So drastic step advance marginally ends rules, increase intolerable degree interference interest book." cases, course, absence contemplated consequence specific prosecution. Stevenson Mathews, 529 (CA7 1976). hypothesize investigatory discover His suspected, new beginning implies

Category: 0