Court Opinion

ID: 9772415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:16:57.226401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:44.096664
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Judge,
concurring.
Perceiving that exigent circumstances did exist, and thus appellant’s arrest was proper under Article 14.04, V.A.C.C.P., I disagree with the need for the majority to enter into any type of discussion regarding the admission into evidence of appellant’s confessions and any attenuating circumstances. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975).
‘The initial fingerprints, which were themselves the fruit of petitioner’s illegal arrest ... and which were used to extract the confession from petitioner, cannot be deemed sufficient ‘attenuation’ to break the connection between the illegal arrest merely because they also formed the basis for an arrest warrant that was filed while petitioner was being interrogated.”
However, because I agree with the result ultimately reached by the majority, I concur with the judgment of the Court.