Legal Document

495 U.S. 14 110 S.Ct. 1640 109 L.Ed.2d 13 NEW YORK, Petitionerv.Bernard HARRIS. No. 88-1000. Argued Jan. 10, 1990. Decided April 18, Syllabus Police officers, having probable cause to believe that respondent Harris committed murder, entered his home without first obtaining a warrant, read him rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694, and reportedly secured an admission of guilt. After he was arrested, taken the police station, again given rights, signed written inculpatory statement. The New York trial court suppressed statement Payton York, 445 573, 100 1371, 63 639, which held Fourth Amendment prohibits from effecting warrantless nonconsensual entry into suspect's in order make routine felony arrest. However, admitted second statement, convicted second-degree murder. Appellate Division affirmed, but State Court Appeals reversed. Applying rule Brown Illinois, 422 590, 95 2254, 45 416, its progeny indirect fruits illegal search or arrest should be when they bear sufficiently close relationship underlying illegality, deemed inadmissible because connection with not attenuated. Held: Where have suspect, exclusionary does bar State's use made by defendant outside home, even though is after violation Payton. penalties imposed on government where officers violated law must some relation purposes serves. United States Ceccolini, 435 268, 279, 98 1054, 1061, 55 268. designed protect physical integrity grant criminal suspects protection for statements their premises supra, are distinguishable, since attenuation analysis only appropriate where, as threshold matter, courts determine challenged evidence sense product governmental activity. Here, had justification question prior arrest; therefore, subsequent exploitation home. Cf. Crews, 463, 1244, 537. Suppressing would serve purpose rule, anything incriminating gathered Harris' in-home has already been excluded. principal incentive obey still obtains: know will lead suppression found inside Moreover, incremental deterrent value suppressing like minimal, it doubtful desire secure suspect whom motivate them violate Pp. 17-21. 72 N.Y.2d 614, 536 N.Y.S.2d 1, 532 N.E.2d 1229 (1988), WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, joined, post, p. 21. Peter D. Coddington petitioner. Barrington Parker, Jr., City, amicus curiae, support judgment below, special leave Court. Justice WHITE 1 On January 11, 1984, City body Ms. Thelma Staton murdered her apartment. Various facts gave this case, Bernard Harris, killed Staton. As result, 16, three went apartment take custody. They did obtain warrant. 2 When arrived, knocked door, displaying guns badges. let enter. Once inside, 694 (1960). acknowledged understood warnings, agreed answer officers' questions. At point, 3 station house, informed rights. He then subsequently warnings third time videotaped interview between district attorney, indicated wanted end interrogation. 4 statements; challenge those rulings. sole issue case whether statement—the at house—should police, entering warrant consent, 639 (1980), concluded admissible. Following bench trial, 124 App.Div.2d 472, 507 823 (1986). 5 A divided reversed, (1988). That accepted court's finding consent therefore there cause. 416 (1975), progeny, determined house fruit noted reasoned "wrong cases . lies arrest, 'but unlawful dwelling proper judicial authorization' " declined suppress confessions were following violations. N.Y.2d, 623, N.Y.S.2d, 6, N.E.2d, 1234. disagreed analysis, contrary own decisions interpreting Payton's scope. We granted certiorari resolve admissibility 490 1018, 1741, 104 178 (1989). 6 For present purposes, we accept below conclusion him. It also evident, light Payton, arresting Amendment. But, emphasized earlier cases, "we adopt 'per se "but for" rule' any evidence, tangible live-witness testimony, somehow came through chain causation began arrest." 276, 1060, 268 (1978). Rather, context, stated "[t]he visited upon Government, turn public, serve." Id., S.Ct., 1063-1064. In these principles, decline apply context home; intended suspects, committing crime. 7 itself our holding stemmed "overriding respect sanctity embedded traditions origins Republic." U.S., 601, 1388. Although long settled public place permissible officer cause, see Watson, 423 411, 96 820, 46 598 (1976), nevertheless drew line entrance This solicitude necessary 'physical chief evil against wording directed.' 585, 1379 (citation omitted). required "interpose magistrate's determination cause" before could enter effect 602-603, 8 Nothing reasoning suggests renders continued custody once removed house. There no valid claim here immune prosecution person 474, 1251, 537 (1980). Nor release immediately rearrested if momentarily released. Because crime, unlawfully allowed talk. legal same arrested doorstep, illegally later interrogated Similarly, there, street returned, doubt 9 different Dunaway 442 200, 99 2248, 60 824 (1979), Taylor Alabama, 457 687, 102 2664, 73 314 (1982). each obtained lacked stand familiar proposition illegality. See Wong Sun States, 371 471, 83 407, 441 (1963). emphasized, however, "the activity." 1250. Judge Titone, concurring basis precedent, cogently argued "[i]n such Illinois (supra) affirmative preliminary may assumed, 'illegality' absence wrong consists police's control defendant's 'challenged evidence'—i.e., post confession—is unquestionably 'the [the] activity'—i.e., wrongful detention." 625, 8, 1235. 10 being Neither rather than someplace else. analogous supra. refused victim's in-court identification despite 'come exploitation' rights," inquire "taint" attenuated permit introduction evidence. likewise, 11 do hold, dissent suggests, while always admissible Statements during course inadmissible, example, coercion, given, Edwards 451 477, 101 1880, 68 378 (1981). hold custody, concedes, fact 12 To put matter another way, in-house illegal. requirement elsewhere, excluded, been; thereby vindicated. Constitution go further deter violating "As considering trials themselves clear, follow emphasis rule's 'anything deters searches commanded Amendment.' Leon, 468 897, 910, 3405, 3413, 82 677 (1984) Even violation, found, taken, If Harris', moreover, minimal. Given position, need interrogate suspect. little actions, one way another. that, accordingly Reversed. 15 BLACKMUN STEVENS join, dissenting. there. entry, exigent circumstances exist. An violates (1980); ante, 17. About hour used trial. majority concedes suppressed. 20. us falls within category. 17 answers adopting broad unprecedented principle, "where Payton." Ante, page. majority's wrong. Its amounts nothing more analytical sleight hand, resting errors logic, misreadings apparent blindness incentives Court's ruling creates knowing intentional constitutional violations police. I dissent. 18 * recent years, repeatedly Amendment's eliminate See, e.g., 906, 3411, (1984). who usually so lawfully. best provide Deterrence thus requires seized unconstitutional search, "derivative both testimonial, primary otherwise acquired result search." Murray 487 533, 536-537, 108 2529, 2532-2533, 472 (1988) (citing Nardone 308 338, 341, 266, 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939)); 488, 417, Not all connected suppressible, however. asked 'whether, granting establishment instant objection come illegality instead means distinguishable purged taint.' Ibid. (quoting J. Maguire, Evidence Guilt 221 (1959)). Accord, 599, 2259, (1975); 217-218, 2259-2260, (1979); 690, 2667, 19 deterrence driven understanding how extensive exclusion Amendment, interest disappear simply voluntary, Fifth Brown, 601-602, 2260-2261; Dunaway, 216-217, 2258-2259; Taylor, 2667. well aware "voluntary" mean entirely unaffected violation. 2260-2261. Indeed, independent purpose. regime suppresses barely begins Constitution. 20 faced then, occasion engage inquiry determines "voluntary," involuntary suppressible event. Attenuation assumes asks conduct cannot answered set per rules. properly treated attributable act irreducibly psychological aspect, irrebuttable presumptions peculiarly unhelpful context. Accordingly, identified several factors relevant attenuation: length presence intervening circumstances, "purpose flagrancy" 603-604, 2261-2262. 21 last factor "particularly" important. 604, 2262. intentionally what knows command, essential conform behavior law. Such "flagrant" marked contrast good-faith misunderstanding requirements. suggested excluding latter variety legitimate enforcement efforts. 918-920, 3418-3419. Underlying view theory fear constitutionality turns out wrong, consequences misjudgments too costly justify possible benefits. Any concerning action resolved action. Whatever truth theory,1 concern good faith overdeterred nonexistent when, based cynical calculus likely results hearing, decides command. 22 application compels elapsed confession, other (1966). held, "Miranda alone se, assure every unduly exploited." 603, 2261 Westover decided 496-497, 1639). 22-23. almost two hours dissipate taint. 23 flagrancy petitioner dispute prohibited Notwithstanding knowledge 24 and, conceded, talk questioning. Nevertheless, attempt although five days killing developed early investigation. testified departmental policy get warrants making arrests From reasonable inference can drawn department's device avoid restrictions questioning until strengthened confession. Thus, intentional, language 'had quality purposefulness,' linkage confession clearly established." 622, 1229, 1233-1234 omitted).2 25 short, decided, apparently consistent "departmental policy," obtain. "No clear [Payton ], my view, App. Where, here, particularly flagrant II 26 Had analyzed precedents dictate should, discussion here—the reduce followed. But chooses unremarkable battleground. Instead, redrafts service conclusions straightforwardly explicitly reject. Specifically, finds unwarranted authority newly fashioned rule. exit necessarily breaks causal regardless factors.3 27 purports defend new self-evident require forgo 18. follows "cause" forced lawfully detained. presupposes concludes here. logic nor precedent supports conclusion. A. 28 Certainly, dramatic leap unexceptionable suggestion took appears rest cramped private place, other. invasion worst kind privacy. intrusion sanctum assault individual's solitude family's communal bonds. said Payton: 29 "The protects privacy settings. none zone defined bounded unambiguous dimensions home—a roots specific terms: 'The right people houses shall violated.' unequivocally establishes '[a]t very core [of Amendment] stands man retreat free unreasonable intrusion.' 589-590, 1381-1382 (ellipses original) Silverman 365 505, 511, 81 679, 683, 734 (1961)). 30 California Ciraolo, 476 207, 212-213, 106 1809, 1812, 90 210 (1986) ("The afforded curtilage essentially families personal area intimately linked physically psychologically, expectations most heightened"). 31 fails account repeated holdings especially invasive. premised magically vanishes dragged concerns evanescent. forcibly separated family dark night uniformed broken down handcuffed him, gunpoint accompany suddenly breathe sigh relief moment across doorstep. frightened rattled say something incriminating. These effects, course, extend far beyond occupation ends. entire focus fix point effects dissipated meaningfully advanced suppression. assertion, axiomatic, ends undefended indefensible. saying law, true. B 32 reading similarly lacks foundation. concerned lingering taint rather, solely detention 18-19 7, 1235 (Titone, concurring)). (and if) Unlike argues, ended reason cause.4 33 cases. presenting issues similar question: occasioned taints ended—stated caused Sun, 485-488, 416-418; 591-592, 2255-2256, 2261; Dun- away, 217, 218, 2260; 2669. Never today continuing secured. 911, 3414 (WHITE, Court) ("In 'dissipation taint' concept applied deciding particular 'attempts mark detrimental become longer justifies cost' ") 34 approach render irrelevant factors, focus, respectively, passage existence If, claims, unless ongoing secured, ever pass circumstance intervene 35 Supreme attempts find inapposite. moved witness's ground arrested. Crews' arrest—that himself "suppressed." courtroom, argument proceeded, turn. rejected argument: 36 "Insofar [Crews] challenges immunity appearance precipitated more, never viewed prosecution, defense conviction. principle Silverthorne Lumber Co. [v. 251 385, 40 182, 64 319 (1920),] delimits proof Government offer accused closing courtroom door official lawlessness. 'fruit,' deprive opportunity prove guilt wholly untainted misconduct." 1251 (citations omitted; footnote emphases added). 37 Seen misuse Crews apparent. seeks evidence—a contend tried illegally, link demand anywhere else, irrelevant. cites directly novel Appeals, 19, hardly sufficient reject years C 38 Perhaps alarming aspect practical Imagine break securing Of able either, simple it. knows, though, waiting entail lot waiting, spend getting better spent criminals. scene avoiding delay, giving flee. 39 More important, drags outside, shaken enormous just undergone, Before today's decision, attenuated; arrest.5 envisions best-case scenario Constitution: avoids major expenditure effort, ensures escape, procures damaging all, His worst-case ensure (which remained unknown absent violation) prosecution's chief. powerful homes, afford presume impervious incentives. officer's unconstitutionally except limited objectively reliance facially issued neutral detached magistrate. 925-926, 3421-3422, think required. id., 928-960, 3430-3445 (BRENNAN, dissenting). "restrictions questioning" refers provides "accusatory instrument" N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § 120.20 (McKinney 1981). attorney accusatory instrument filed. People Samuels, 49 424 892, 400 1344 rules operate prohibit lawyer present. comply tell anything, nothing. refusing counsel attached interference lawyer. lower existed fully justified. caveat sorts. holds (emphasis adds lacking "is activity—i.e., 19. (internal quotation marks citation suppressed, irrespective antecedent assures "that custody." "would if, 477 [101 378] (1981)." aware, examples constitutes Fourth. 23. disclaimer serves reinforce rests still-undefended premise officer, works State, assertion "[i]t Payton," 21, takes singularly ironic cast. precisely identifies "doubtful." n. 2, accompanying text.

Classification Label: 0