Warning: mysqli_num_fields() expects parameter 1 to be mysqli_result, boolean given in /home/ucmjdef1/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 3283

After an illegal arrest or search

After an illegal arrest or search

After an illegal arrest or search

  1. bestmilitarydefensedefenseattorneys10.01.59PMcopyBrown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975).
    Miranda warnings alone are insufficient to cure taint of arrest made without probable cause or warrant. Factors to consider on attenuation of the taint: (1) Miranda warnings; (2) “temporal proximity” of the illegal arrest and the confession; (3) “intervening circumstances”; and, (4) “purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct”.
  2. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). Statements made by appellant in his bedroom at the time of his unlawful arrest were the fruits of the agents’ unlawful action, and they should have been excluded from evidence. However, since the appellant was later lawfully arraigned and released on his own recognizance and had returned voluntarily several days later when he made his unsigned statement, the connection between his unlawful arrest and the making of this later statement was so attenuated that the unsigned statement was not the fruit of the unlawful arrest and, therefore, it was properly admitted in evidence.
  3. United States v. Washington, 39 M.J.1014 (A.C.M.R. 1994). Unlawful search tainted statements made by accused where first statement was taken immediately after search and discussed items found during search. While a rights warning is a relevant factor in attenuating a statement from prior official misconduct, a warning alone cannot always break the casual connection.
    See also New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990) (where the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an illegal warrantless arrest made in the home);
    United States v. Khamsouk, 57 M.J. 282 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (although appellant was seized during an illegal search, his continued custody at the police station was based on probable cause, therefore, his subsequent warned statement to police was properly admitted).
  4. United States v. Mitchell, 31 M.J. 914 (A.F.C.M.R. 1990).
    Harris applied. Statement made to police who entered accused’s motel room based on probable cause, but without a warrant or his consent should have been suppressed, but written statement given three days later was admissible.
  5. United States v. Campbell, 41 M.J. 177 (C.M.A. 1994). Illegality of urinalysis precluded admission of accused’s statements, where urinalysis results were delivered to accused on day he made his initial confession, accused was directed to bring form notifying him of positive results to the criminal investigative division office, and positive results of the challenged urinalysis were the sole basis for the accused’s questioning by the military police. However, no cleansing warning was given.