PA Chiefs_Bulletin Winter

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

BULLETIN

WINTER 2016

www.pachiefs.org

THE CHIEF’S

LEGAL UPDATE

LEGAL UPDATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

tion applies, we also conclude that the plain

view exception applies in this case. We fur-

ther conclude, accordingly, that there is no

basis to suppress the shotgun pursuant to the

exclusionary rule, and we deny Defendant's

Motion to Suppress on this basis.5

C. Post-Arrest Statements

Defendant argues that any incriminating

statements he made while being transported

to the police station must be suppressed. Al-

though Defendant denies making any such

statements to the officers during his ride

to the police station, he argues that if such

statements exist, they should be suppressed

as fruits of the poisonous tree because they

were made as a result of an invalid investiga-

tory stop and an invalid search and seizure.

As we discussed earlier, the Supreme Court

has held that "evidence and witnesses discov-

ered as a result of a search in violation of the

Fourth Amendment must be excluded from

evidence." Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298,

305-06 (1985) (citing Wong Sun, 371 U.S.

at 471). "The Wong Sun doctrine applies as

well when the fruit of the Fourth Amend-

ment violation is a confession." Id.

Defendant maintains that he did not make

any incriminating statements to the police

officers. However, Officer Lane and Of-

ficer Filler each testified to materially in-

distinguishable statements made by Defen-

dant during the ride to the police station.

(9/22/16 N.T. at 37-38, 106.)

5Defendant argues that the search-incident-

to-arrest exception to the warrant require-

ment is the only exception that could apply

in this case and that, under the law govern-

ing that exception, as it is applied in the au-

tomobile context, the officers' warrantless

search of the van was unreasonable. Defen-

dant asserts that the search was unreasonable

because he was not within reaching distance

of the passenger compartment at the time of

the search and the officers had no reasonable

suspicion to believe that the van contained

evidence of the offense of arrest. However, as

we discussed above, we have concluded that

both the automobile and plain view excep-

tions to the warrant requirement apply in

this case. Accordingly, we need not analyze

Defendant's arguments as to the search-inci-

dent-to-arrest exception.

Because we have found the officers' testimo-

ny to be credible, we accept that Defendant

made the incriminating statements he is now

seeking to suppress. Defendant further ar-

gues that even if he did make incriminating

statements, because the initial stop and the

search and seizure were unlawful, any state-

ments elicited as a direct result of the offi-

cers' unlawful conduct must be suppressed.

Defendant contends that, but for the illegal

stop and search and seizure, the incriminat-

ing statements would have never been made.

We have concluded that the investiga-

tory stop of Defendant and the subsequent

search and seizure did not violate the Fourth

Amendment. We have also concluded that

the police officers' recovery of the shotgun

did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Be-

cause only statements made as a result of a

Fourth Amendment violation may be sup-

pressed under the fruits of the poisonous

tree doctrine, the statements made here need

not be excluded. See Wong Sun, 371 U.S.

at 471. Defendant's request to suppress the

post-arrest statements made to the officers is,

therefore, denied.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we deny Defen-

dant's Motion to Suppress evidence of the

shotgun and the post-arrest statements. An

appropriate Order follows

The material in this law alert has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely

intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation

or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this

and other subjects. To be removed from our list of subscribers who receive these complimentary Law Enforcement updates, please

contact

cpboyle@mdwcg.com

If however you continue to receive the alerts in error, please send a note to

:cpboyle@mdwcg.com

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1