Court Opinion

ID: 9457914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:37:45.183412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:34.295948
License: Public Domain

MURRAH, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
I agree that a confession obtained during an unlawful detention is not by that fact alone made involuntary or inadmissible. But I must reject the view apparently adopted by the majority that voluntariness is the sole test of admissibility under such circumstances. The effect of this opinion is to cut down the poisonous tree doctrine. I am opposed to it and accordingly dissent.
The majority finds support for its view in the interpretation of Wong Sun in Hollingsworth v. United States, 321 F.2d 342, 350 (10th Cir. 1963). Despite the language in Hollingsworth quoted and relied upon by the majority, I am unable to find anything in Wong Sun to support the proposition that voluntariness is the sole test of admissibility. The critical language in Wong Sun simply states: “ . . . the more apt question in such a case is ‘whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ ” 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 417.
I interpret this language to say unequivocally that evidence obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest or detention is inadmissible, even though voluntarily confessed. This is undoubtedly the law of the land generally.1 The poisonous tree doctrine was conceived by Justice Holmes in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920), annunciated by Justice Frankfurter in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S.Ct. 266, 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939), and clearly defined by Justice Brennan in Wong Sun. I do not believe we are quite ready or willing to repudiate those cases or the constitutional principles upon which they are based.
The majority’s reliance upon Brinegar v. United States, 165 F.2d 512 (10th Cir. 1947), aff’d, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949), is misplaced. *1197That case was concerned only with the issue of voluntariness, not with the admissibility of an admittedly voluntary statement.
Furthermore, the provisions of 18 U. S.C. § 3501 do not support Hollingsworth in the manner asserted by the majority opinion. Wong Sun held that evidence tainted by violations of Fourth Amendment rights is constitutionally inadmissible. Imperatives based on constitutional principles cannot, of course, be subverted by mere legislation. Both the legislative history of Title II of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and cases construing the statute indicate clearly that it does not and, moreover, could not sanction the admission of statements obtained in violation of constitutional prohibitions. See Senate Report No. 1097, 1968 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 2112, 2123-2150; United States v. King, 321 F. Supp. 614, 617 (W.D.Tex.1970); United States v. Tarlowski, 305 F.Supp. 112, 123 (E.D.N.Y.1969); United States v. Schipani, 289 F.Supp. 43, 59-60 (E.D. N.Y.1968), aff’d, 2 Cir., 414 F.2d 1262, cert. denied, 397 U.S. 922, 90 S.Ct. 902, 25 L.Ed.2d 102.
It is agreed that Davis’ detention was unlawful. To me it is plain that this unlawful police action was for the sole purpose of securing evidence on the subsequent Dyer Act charge. The resulting confession was, thus, “come at by exploitation” of the unlawful detention, and unquestionably fruit of the poisonous tree, regardless of the voluntariness with which it was given. For this Court to conclude that Davis’ detention was completely unjustified on the one hand, and, at the same time, admit evidence which was the target and goal of that unlawful detention has the effect of “legitimatizing the conduct which produced the evidence” and making the Court “party to lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of citizens by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of such invasions.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 13, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1875, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

. See, e. g., Morales v. New York, 396 U.S. 102, 90 S.Ct. 291, 24 L.Ed.2d 299 (1969); Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219, 88 S.Ct. 2008, 20 L.Ed.2d 1047 (1968); Allen v. Cupp, 426 F.2d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1970); Phelper v. Decker, 401 F.2d 232, 237 (5th Cir. 1968); Collins v. Beto, 348 F.2d 823, 827-828 (5th Cir. 1965) (opinion of Tuttle, C. J.); People v. Bilderbach, 62 Cal. 757, 44 Cal. Rptr. 313, 401 P.2d 921, 927 (1965); State v. Traub, 151 Conn. 246, 196 A.2d 755, 757 (1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 960, 84 S.Ct. 1637, 12 L.Ed.2d 503; State v. Barwick, 94 Idaho 139, 483 P.2d 670, 673 (1971).