Court Opinion

ID: 9746693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:33:53.43943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:15.958927
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
The majority implies that the resolution of this case turns upon the timing and legality of appellant’s arrest. I am persuaded, however, that the circumstances of appellant’s arrest are irrelevant to a determination of the suppression issue.
Even if appellant were illegally arrested, the evidence subsequently recovered from the police station toilet tank would not have been the fruit of that illegal arrest. “The general rule is that evidence obtained through a prior illegality is inadmissible against a criminal defendant.” Commonwealth v. Romberger, 474 Pa. 190, 197, 378 A.2d 283, 286 (1977). This Court has recognized, however, that “an illegal arrest does not necessarily taint all evidence that follows in time.” Commonwealth v. Richards, 458 Pa. 455, 464, 327 A.2d 63, 67 (1974). Relying on Wong Sun v. United States, *410371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), this Court has noted that
the challenged evidence may be purged of the primary taint only (1) if it results from “ ‘an intervening, independent act of a free will,’ ” or (2) if the connection between the arrest and the evidence . . . has “ ‘become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.’ ” (Citations omitted.)
Betrand Appeal, 451 Pa. 381, 388-89, 303 A.2d 486, 490 (1973).
Applying these rules to the facts of the instant case, it is readily apiparent that the recovery of the items from the toilet tank was the result of an intervening independent act of free will on the part of appellant, and not the result of an exploitation of the illegal arrest on the part of the police. These items were discovered only after appellant voluntarily sought permission to enter the restroom, voluntarily removed the items from his person, and voluntarily placed them into the tank. At no time prior to the discovery of these items did the police coerce, intimidate, search or physically restrain appellant, nor did they make any inquiry into the circumstances of the robbery during which the items had been taken. Once appellant voluntarily placed the items into the tank, those items were purged of the primary taint of any unlawful arrest.
Alternatively, if appellant were not unlawfully arrested prior to the recovery of the evidence from the toilet tank, he would still have suffered no violation of rights under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable governmental invasions of legitimate expectations of privacy. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 430, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). The legitimacy of any expectation of privacy must be determined with reference to the law of property or to “understandings that are recognized and permitted by society,” and not by resort to any subjective standard. Id., at 430-31 n.12. An individual may forfeit a legitimate expectation of privacy, and thus the protection of the Fourth Amendment, by conduct or presence in a particular place, under such conditions that society would cease to recognize the continued legitimacy of *411that expectation. See, Commonwealth v. Timko, 491 Pa. 32, 417 A.2d 620 (Larsen, J., dissenting, 1980.) While an individual may have a legitimate expectation of privacy with regard to property kept on his person, a defendant can scarcely claim to have any expectation of privacy with respect to evidence that he voluntarily removes from his person and attempts to conceal inside a police station. In the present case, appellant had no grounds for complaint when the police found the items he had placed in the tank because he had lost the protection of the Fourth Amendment with respect to those items when he voluntarily placed them there.
Finally, that evidence retrieved from the van and the Cougar, pursuant to the warrant obtained after the evidence was found in the toilet tank, was also admissible against appellant because it was the fruit of the lawful discovery of other evidence-the items in the tank-and was in no way tainted by any unlawful arrest or illegal search and seizure. The suppression court was thus correct in refusing to suppress any of the evidence admitted at appellant’s trial. Accordingly, I would affirm the order of the Superior Court.
FLAHERTY and KAUFFMAN, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.