Legal Document

538 U.S. 626 KAUPPv.TEXAS. No. 02-5636. Supreme Court of United States. Decided May 5, 2003. After petitioner Kaupp, then 17, was implicated in the murder a 14-year-old girl by confession girl's half brother, detectives tried, but failed, to obtain warrant question Kaupp. They went his house at 3 a.m.; awakened and handcuffed him; led him, shoeless dressed only underwear, patrol car; stopped crime scene; took him sheriff's headquarters, where they removed handcuffs advised rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436. Once presented with brother's confession, Kaupp admitted having part crime. He did not acknowledge causing fatal wound or confess murder, for which he later indicted. moved unsuccessfully suppress as fruit an illegal arrest, convicted, sentenced prison. In affirming, Texas Appeals found that arrest occurred after Kaupp's confession; consented go officers when answered "Okay" officer's statement needed talk; reasonable person would have believed putting on before being car significant restriction freedom movement, since this common practice office; resist use act manner consistent anything full cooperation. The State Criminal denied discretionary review. Held: arrested within meaning Fourth Amendment began him. A seizure Fourteenth Amendments occurs when, "taking into account all circumstances surrounding encounter, police conduct `have communicated liberty ignore presence about business.'" Florida Bostick, 501 429, 437. This test is derived from Justice Stewart's opinion States Mendenhall, 446 544, 554, includes, examples might indicate seizure, threatening several officers, display weapon, some physical touching person, language tone voice indicating compliance request be compelled. has never sustained involuntary removal suspect home station detention there investigative purposes absent probable cause judicial authorization. does claim had here, application just mentioned shows arrested, evidence every one Mendenhall's probative circumstances. 17-year-old boy a.m. least three placed handcuffs, taken underwear without shoes scene offices, interrogation room questioned. contrary reasons state courts — response, office routinely individuals transporting them, uncooperatively are no answer facts here. Because questioned, because department detain point, must suppressed unless can show it free will sufficient purge primary taint unlawful invasion. relevant consideration supporting observance Miranda, such warnings alone cannot always break causal connection between illegality Brown Illinois, 422 590, 603. All other considerations—the temporal proximity intervening circumstances, official misconduct's purpose flagrancy point opposite way. Unless, remand, testimony undisclosed record, weighty enough carry its burden despite clear force suppressed. Certiorari granted; vacated remanded. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT APPEALS TEXAS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT. PER CURIAM. 1 case turns rule "obtained exploitation arrest" may used against criminal defendant. 603 (1975). disappeared January 1999, Harris County Sheriff's Department learned she sexual relationship her 19-year-old who been company Robert 17 years old, day disappearance. On 26th, deputy sheriffs questioned brother headquarters; cooperative permitted leave, failed polygraph examination (his third failure). Eventually confessed fatally stabbed sister body drainage ditch. 2 Detectives immediately tried Kaupp.1 Detective Gregory Pinkins nevertheless decided (in words) "get [Kaupp] confront what [the brother] said." App. Pet. Cert. 2. two plainclothes uniformed approximately 27th. father let them in, Pinkins, bedroom, flashlight, identified himself, said, "`we need talk.'" Ibid. said "`Okay.'" boxer shorts T-shirt, out car. points nothing record told decline officers. 5 10 minutes victim's found, anticipation confronting headquarters. There, interview room, 436 (1966). first any involvement disappearance, 15 interrogation, not, however, 4 moving convicted 55 years' imprisonment. affirmed conviction unpublished opinion, concluding until confession. court "`Okay'" Pinkins's 2, 6. saw significance subsequent handcuffing car, given "routinely" using safety individuals, done before. Id., observed "a [Kaupp's] position believe put movement." Finally, noted "did than cooperation." 6-7. appealed, B We grant motion leave proceed forma pauperis, petition certiorari, vacate judgment below. 437 (1991) (quoting Michigan Chesternut, 486 567, 569 (1988)). 544 (1980), see California Hodari D., 499 621, 627-628 (1991), gave "[e]xamples even attempt leave," including "the weapon officer, citizen, compelled." supra, 554. 6 Although certain seizures justified something less cause, see, e. g., Terry Ohio, 392 (1968), we "sustained challenge ... authorization." Hayes Florida, 470 811, 815 (1985);2 cf. Payton New York, 445 573, 589-590 (1980); compare Royer, 460 491, (1983) (plurality opinion) ("[The police] [not] seek verify [mere] suspicions means approach conditions arrest"), Sokolow, 490 1, 7 (1989) ("[T]he stop briefly if officer suspicion supported articulable activity `may afoot,' lacks cause" Terry, 30)). Such transport questioning "sufficiently like arres[t] invoke traditional arrests constitutionally made cause." Hayes, 816. straightforward beyond cavil Amendment, Stewart Mendenhall.3 bedroom morning whom stated shoes, January, driven more starkly Dunaway 442 200, 212 (1979), "was neighbor's transported station, room." There held "in important respects indistinguishable therefore required authorization legal. same is, anything, clearer 8 Contrary facts. response showing consent offered choice, group rousing adolescent bed middle night words talk'" presents option "to go." reason think mere submission lawful authority." 497 opinion); also Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 226, 233-234 (1973). If doubt were possible ensuing events resolve it: one's trip way law enforcement Even "an initially consensual encounter transformed Amendment." INS Delgado, 466 210, 215 (1984); 815-816 ("[A]t process, procedures qualitatively quantitatively so intrusive respect suspect's movement privacy interests trigger protection Amendments"). It seriously suggested situation thought sitting matter change mind bed. 9 Nor significant, thought, prior occasion, while objective one, S., 574, stressing officers' motivation self-protection speak how their actions reasonably understood. As lack resistance, failure struggle cohort waiver protection, require perversity resisting assaulting officer. Since well-established precedent requires suppression [sufficient] invasion." Wong Sun States, 371 471, (1963). Demonstrating purgation course, function circumstantial evidence, persuasion State. See Brown, 604. Relevant considerations include "[t]he and, particularly, misconduct." 603-604 (footnotes citation omitted). 11 us these considerations, giving warnings, supports State, "Miranda per se, break, purposes, confession." (emphasis original); Taylor Alabama, 457 687, 699 (1982) (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting) (noting that, although factor, "they are, standing alone, insufficient"). factors indication substantial time passed interrogation. interim, remained partially clothed custody number whom, least, conscious lacked arrest. 604-605. fact, alleged "any meaningful event" Taylor, 691. us, State's shown 12 vacated, remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 13 ordered. Notes: applied district attorney's "pocket warrant," described authority take questioning. D (trial transcript). conventional warrant, Seeibid. trial explained, motive corroborate allegations involvement, C 2; previously examinations, while, days earlier, voluntarily id., 1-2. have, left open possibility "under circumscribed procedures," validly authorize object fingerprintingHayes, 817. debate whether armed. armed specifically visible, though drawn, confronted bedroom. But testified unarmed. transcript)

Classification Label: 0