Court Opinion

ID: 9861495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:07:08.951369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:34.296388
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Hunter, J.
I concur in Parts I, III and IV. I concur in result in Part II, with opinion.
Were we writing on a clean slate, the logical distinction between physical evidence seized in an unlawful search and verbal statements made by persons present at the search situs would seem appealing. However, Wong Sun v. U.S., (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 486, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441, 454, 83 S. Ct. 407, held that the fourth amendment policies underlying the exclusionary rule forbade such distinction. Verbal “fruits” are therefore suppressible. Nevertheless, facts within an inadmissible statement are admissible if the prosecution establishes that its knowledge of the facts flowed from a source independent of the unlawful search, see Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S., (1920) 251 U.S. 385, 392, 64 L. Ed. 319, 321, 40 S. Ct. 182. Alternatively, verbal statements may be admissible under the attenuation theory, see Nardone v. U.S., (1939) 308 U.S. 338, 341, 84 L. Ed. 307, 312, 60 S. Ct. 266. The *36latter theory was applied in Wong Sun, 371 U.S. 471, 491, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441, 457, 83 S. Ct. 407, with the result that an unsigned confession, made after his arraignment and release upon his own recognizance, was properly admitted against Wong Sun.
A superficial analysis of the attenuation doctrine as applied in Wong Sun might lead to the conclusion that the mere lapse of time alone resulted in the statement being attenuated, and therefore admissible. A closer analysis suggests that the relevant inquiry is whether requisite procedural due process has been afforded. An affirmative answer to this inquiry should make verbal statements prima facie admissible. It therefore becomes necessary to know whether Watt and Phillips were given their Miranda rights prior to their statements. If so, I would hold their statements admissible without further ado. If not, the trial court must determine whether the statements were, nevertheless, voluntary. If so, they should be admitted.