STATE v. GEISLER5/11/1990
ressed in Brown v. Illinois, supra, where the defendant, Brown, was the subject of an illegal arrest, brought into the police station, advised of his Miranda rights, and subsequently questioned about the homicide for which he had been arrested. Brown later gave a second incriminatory statement. The United States Supreme Court in Brown overturned the Illinois Supreme Court's admission of those statements into evidence and noted that "the State failed to sustain its burden of showing that the evidence in question was admissible under Wong Sun. Brown's first statement was separated from his illegal arrest by less than two hours, and there was no intervening event of significance whatsoever." (Footnote added.) Id., 604. The court
went On to hold the second statement inadmissible as well, reasoning that " he fact that Brown had made one statement, believed to him to be admissible, and his cooperation with the arresting and interrogating officers in the search for [the suspect), with his anticipation of leniency, bolstered the pressures for him to give the second, or at least vitiated any incentive on his part to avoid self-incrimination. Cf. Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 [84 S.Ct. 229, 11 L.Ed.2d 171) (1963)." Id., 605 n. 12.
In this case, the intervening circumstances upon which the state relies are that the officers read the defendant his Miranda warnings twice prior to his consenting to take the intoximeter test, his consent was obtained away from the arrest scene, the defendant was given an opportunity to contact an attorney prior to consenting, and the defendant consented after the police advised him of the implied consent statute, General Statutes 14-227b.
Our analysis of these postarrest events leads us to conclude that there was a continuum of police contact with the defendant that was insufficient to eradicate the taint from the derivative evidence. Cf. id., 604-605. Thus, the Miranda warnings that the police gave the defendant subsequent to the illegal arrest had little effect in breaking the connection between the defendant's unlawful seizure and his statements and other derivative evidence. Miranda warnings are given to protect the defendant's fifth amendment rights, but do not fully protect the rights under the fourth amendment. Therefore, even if statements are found to be voluntary under the fifth amendment, the fourth amendment issue remains. In order to break the continuum between the illegal arrest and any subsequent statements obtained, the statements must be "sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint."
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 486, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); see Brown v. Illinois, supra, 602-604; see also Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 216-18, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). "Arrests made without warrants or without probable cause . . . would be encouraged by the knowledge that evidence derived therefrom could well be made admissible at trial by the simple expedient of giving Miranda warnings. Any incentive to avoid Fourth Amendment violations would be eviscerated by making the warnings, in effect, a `cure-all,' and the constitutional guarantee against unlawful searches and seizures could be said to be reduced to `a form of words.' See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. [643, 648, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961)]." Brown v. Illinois, supra, 602-603.
Finally, the state would have us agree with the trial court's conclusion that, because of the "good faith" intentions of the police in making the warrantless entry into the defendant's house, their actions were not tantamount to the "flagrant police misconduct" that is the subject of the Brown analysis. The state argues that we should, in ef
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Connecticut DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|