Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Police found the body of Thelma Staton murdered in her apartment. From the facts present, they had probable cause to believe that D had killed her. Three police officers went to D's apartment to take him into custody. They did not obtain an arrest warrant. They knocked and displaying their guns and badges. D let them enter. They read D his rights under Miranda and D acknowledged that he understood the warnings, and agreed to answer the officers' questions. D admitted that he had killed Staton. D was arrested, taken to the station-house, and again informed of his Miranda rights. He then signed a written inculpatory statement. D was given his Miranda warnings a third time, and the police videotaped an incriminating interview between D and a district attorney, even though D had indicated that he wanted to end the interrogation. The trial court suppressed the first and third statements. The issue is whether the written statement made at the station house should have been suppressed because the police, by entering D's home without a warrant and without his consent, violated Payton v. New York, which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from effecting a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest. The New York trial court concluded that the statement was admissible. D was convicted of second-degree murder. The Appellate Division affirmed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. The court determined that the station house statement was inadmissible as the fruit of the illegal arrest because the connection between the statement and the arrest was not sufficiently attenuated. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co