Document: 511 U.S. 79114 S.Ct. 1280128 L.Ed.2d 1 Kitrich POWELL, Petitioner,v.NEVADA. No. 92-8841. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Feb. 22, 1994. Decided March 30, Syllabus * Petitioner Powell was arrested on November 3, 1989, for felony child abuse. Not until 7, however, did a magistrate find probable cause to hold him preliminary hearing. The in question subsequently died her injuries, and charged additionally with murder. At trial, state prosecutor presented prejudicial statements had made police 7. jury found guilty sentenced death. On appeal, Nevada Court, sua sponte, raised whether 4-day delay judicial confirmation violated Fourth Amendment, view County Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 44, 111 1661, 114 49, which held that determination must generally be within 48 hours warrantless arrest, that, absent extraordinary circumstances, longer is unconstitutional. court decided McLaughlin inapplicable Powell's case, because his prosecution commenced prior rendition decision. Held: erred failing recognize McLaughlin's 48-hour rule applied retroactively, under Griffith Kentucky, 479 314, 328, 107 708, 716, 93 649, "a . conduct criminal prosecutions retroactively all cases, or federal, not yet final" when announced. Although here presumptively unreasonable it does necessarily follow set free gain other relief. Several questions remain open decision remand, including appropriate remedy determining (an issue resolved by ), consequence failure raise federal question, introduction at trial what said 7 "harmless" similar, albeit shorter, statement he arrest. Pp. ____. 108 Nev. 700, 838 P.2d 921, (1992), vacated remanded. GINSBURG, J., delivered opinion BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, filed dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., Michael Pescetta, Las Vegas, NV, petitioner. Dan M. Seaton, respondent. Miguel A. Estrada, Washington, DC, as amicus curiae special leave Court. Justice GINSBURG In Gerstein Pugh, 420 103, 95 854, 43 54 (1975), we Amendment's shield against seizures requires prompt following an arrest without warrant ensuing detention. 49 (1991), established "prompt" means arrest; violates Amendment. case now before us, stated apply We misread this Court's precedent: "[A] 649 (1987). 2 Friday, abuse girlfriend's 4-year-old daughter, violation Nev.Rev.Stat. § 200.508 (1991). That afternoon, arresting officer prepared sworn declaration describing circumstances same day, police, him, later trial. personally brought 13, 1989. By time, 3 A first-degree murder and, penalty hearing, appeal argued State Nevada's "initial appearance" statute bring 72 hours, conviction should therefore reversed. 4 governing appearances provides: 5 "If person after excluding nonjudicial days, magistrate: 6 "(a) Shall give prosecuting attorney opportunity explain leading delay; "(b) May release if determines 8 unnecessary delay." 171.178(3). 9 emphasized 10 days elapsed between 13 initial appearance magistrate. incriminating contended, unlawful him. Under law, asserted, vindication right speedy first required reversed, free. Appellant's Opening Brief 22348 (Nev.), p. 85. District Attorney maintained there been no fatal statute. First, urged, occurred (excluding intervening weekend). This finding, satisfied 72-hour prescription 171.178. any event, continued, accused waives arraignment voluntarily silent counsel. so, said, statements, read Miranda rights waived those rights. See Respondent's Answering pp. 56-60. reply, vigorously contested Attorney's portrayal tantamount sufficient satisfy 171.178's prescription. pointed out "was neither present [n]or advised magistrate's finding." Reply 1. 11 concluded, accord assertion, law arraignment. ----, 924-925 (1992). If confined point, its would have issue. But more. Perhaps response contention notation 171.178 (a disavows), concern. detoured from state-law analysis inquire Amendment precedents. 12 recognized, specific promptness requirement (1975); instructed exceeding Merging declared: "The renders [Nev.Rev.Stat. §] 171.178(3) unconstitutional insofar [as] permits up seventy-two instructs non-judicial excluded calculation hours." Nev., P.2d, 924. While instructing henceforth, determinations suspect's "to hand," recent precedent postdated Id., n. 1, 924, announced new rule, observed, need retroactively. Ibid. petitioned our review raising may decline recently rendered pending direct appeal. granted certiorari, 510 57, 126 26 (1993), reject court's prospectivity declaration. II 14 validated four elapsed. rule. so concedes. Appellee's Answer Petition Rehearing 7; Tr. Oral Arg. 28. further concedes retroactivity incorrect. ibid. U.S., S.Ct., final." stressed two points. "the nature precludes us '[s]imply fishing one stream appellate review, using vehicle pronouncing constitutional standards, then permitting similar cases flow unaffected rule.' " 323, 713 (quoting Mackey States, 401 667, 679, 91 1160, 1173, 28 404 (1971) (Harlan, concurring judgment)). Second, "selective application rules principle treating similarly situated defendants same." Griffith, supra, 713. Assuming, arguendo, presumption qualifies "new rule," cf. Teague Lane, 489 288, 299-310, 109 1060, 1069-1075, 103 334 (1989), nonetheless entitles rely simple reason: final 15 It follow, "be free," relief, several remand. particular, has closely considered consequences argument 1989 Respondent 22. Expressing these issues,* only Kentucky calls retroactive 16 For reasons stated, judgment vacated, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 17 ordered. 18 whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting. 19 After concluding (1987), remands deciding ultimate below, despite error, correct. my view, lower upholding petitioner's correct settled legal principles, affirmed. 20 petition certiorari single review—namely, particular concerning procedure review. well time filed, since 716. contrary footnote infra page Notwithstanding obvious mistake, Griffith's generated little confusion among courts. writ improvidently granted. 21 According Rule 10.1, "[a] will are important therefor." were favoring but, Stewart once wrote: remarkable thing about presence involves more than well-settled principles familiar situation, significance except [parties]." Butz Glover Livestock Commission Co., 411 182, 189, 1455, 1460, 36 142 (1973) (dissenting opinion). As observed past, "it very consistent granting involving settlement importance public distinguished parties, where real embarrassing conflict authority circuit courts appeal." Layne & Bowler Corp. Western Well Works, Inc., 261 387, 393, 422, 423, 67 L.Ed. 712 (1923). make poor use resources when, here, take merely reaffirm (without revisiting) law. Estelle Gamble, 429 97, 115, 97 285, 296-297, 50 251 (1976) (STEVENS, dissenting); Shannon, 342 294-295, 281, 96 321 (1952) (opinion Frankfurter, J.). 22 Now invested full briefing oral argument, decide how properly dispose case. vacates erred, judgment, but rather "prospectivity declaration." Ante, "declaration" refers "not retroactively." correctly supra. Rather remanding, I believe instance can definitively resolve us: "Our job judgments, edit opinions. ." Phillips Petroleum Co. Shutts, 472 797, 823, 105 2965, 2980, 86 628 (1985) part part). also K Mart Cartier, 485 176, 185, 950, 957, 99 151 (1988); Black Cutter Laboratories, 351 292, 297, 76 824, 827, 100 1188 (1956). 23 Of course, factfinding best conducted courts, depends debatable points briefed argued, regularly determine course See, e.g., Pierce Underwood, 487 552, 574, 2541, 2554-2555, 101 490 (1988) (vacating award attorney's fees remanding recalculation fee award). Those concerns, do require remand defense respondent amici number arguments, see Blum Bacon, 457 132, 137, 5, 102 2355, 2359, 728 (1982), fully briefed. least arguments provides ground undisputed facts record us. needless expenditure claim lacks merit. 24 care 2, Melea Allen suffered massive head spinal injuries. When petitioner took hospital she comatose suffering respiratory failure. told doctors nurses fallen shoulders during play. emergency room personnel discovered numerous bruises lacerations body—injuries suggested abused repeatedly—they called police. spoke officers who responded call again explained child's injuries result accidental fall. 25 later, Within hour recited above establish cause. still custody receiving warnings, agreed second He repeated version events given slightly detail. magistrate, relying described above, determined supported next day died, contends respondent's securing probable-cause must, extenuating argues, suppression custodial introduced 27 Against contentions: first, evidence never violation; second, product connection attenuated required; third, inappropriate Illinois Krull, 480 340, 94 364 acted good-faith reliance authorized delays weekends holidays) presenting defendant magistrate; finally, even suppressed, admitting harmless error. Even assuming, proper errors, ante, ____, violation. Our decisions clear "that 'fruit' [of act] unless illegality 'but for' discovery evidence." Segura 468 796, 815, 104 3380, 3391, 82 599 (1984). suggests, "but for" causation necessary, sufficient, condition suppression: "we declined adopt per se inadmissible somehow came light through chain began [violation Fifth Amendments]." New York Harris, 495 14, 17, 110 1640, 1642, (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). Ceccolini, 435 268, 276, 98 1054, 55 268 (1978). 29 Contrary (as opposed ) bore causal relationship whatsoever statement. timing affected hearing mark resulted finding Yet, found, suspect abuse, Gates, 462 213, 2317, 527 (1983), suggestion permitted gather additional contrary, based included completed Thus, information presented, obtained, none altered. 30 Moreover, cannot error thereby custody. Because petitioner, lawfully hospital. Cf. 18, 1643.1 period lawful render illegal. becomes due obtain cause—that is, disappear judicially hours. Montalvo-Murillo, 711, 722, 2072, 2079, 720 ("[A] become immune detention violation"). 31 short, meet threshold being "product" violation.2 Petitioner's statement, "while custody, fruit fact" mandated McLaughlin. 20, 1644. warranted 32 foregoing reasons, below 33 respectfully dissent. syllabus constitutes Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. THOMAS reach questions, though "suppression [Powell's 7] violation." Post, "settled law," maintains, post, fact existed detention, violated, triggers remedy. Quite opposite, recognizes, law" regarding search warrants: post-search validation admissible. Vale Louisiana, 399 35, 34, 90 1969, 1972, 409 (1970) (absent justifying search, "constitutional [to] admi[t] into fruits illegal search," "even authorities ha[d] it"). precedents, especially (1990), already arrests dwelling, Payton York, 445 573, 1371, 63 639 (1980), lead post-arrest confession. complain warrant. targets different violation—failure authorization significant pretrial Whether applies setting remains unresolved question. raised, settle here. investigatory distinguishes Taylor Alabama, 687, 2664, 73 314 Brown Illinois, 422 590, 2254, 45 416 Dunaway 442 200, 2248, 60 824 (1979). Where lacking, each obtained "bear[s] sufficiently close underlying [to suppression]." 19, 1643, (1990). cause, contrast, validates attendant 'technical' violations rights" either. Brown, 611, 2265 (Powell, 1643 (holding house warrant, resulting subsequent admissible). notes, *, warrants. context, insisted exigent they see, Coolidge Hampshire, 403 443, 454-455, 2022, 2031-2032, 564 (1971), exception exclusionary applies. 347-349, 1165-1167, arrests. "[W]hile expressed preference warrants feasible, invalidated solely failed secure warrant." 113, 862, (1975) (citations Nor voluntary officers' reason think developed context conventional attenuation "attenuation where, matter, 'the challenged some sense governmental activity.' Crews, 463, 471, 1244, 1250, 537 (1980)).

Category: 0