 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cooper10/28/2005
g that his incriminating statements there were a product of the prior unlawful entry into his home. Cf. Harris, supra, at 17-21 (holding that where police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not require suppression of a statement made by the suspect outside his home, even when the statement is made following an unlawful entry into the home).
{ } It remains entirely possible, however, that detective Miller may have obtained the incriminating statements from Cooper at the Safety Building by confronting him with evidence that was illegally seized during the unlawful entry into his home (i.e., the blue jacket discussed above) and questioning him about it. If so, it certainly can be argued that Cooper's statements at the Safety Building were influenced by the seizure of tainted evidence and, thus, were a product of the illegal entry into his home. See Saltzburg, Capra & Davis, Basic Criminal Procedure (3rd Ed. 2003) 313, citing United States v. Beltran (1st Cir. 1990), 917 F.2d 641.
{ } Unfortunately, the appellate record does not reveal the questions asked by detective Miller at the Safety Building or the incriminating responses given by Cooper. The content of the interview and the motivation for Cooper's statements are unknown to us. As a result, we cannot engage in the fact-specific inquiry required to determine whether Cooper's statements at the Safety Building were a product of the illegal entry into his home and, if so, whether they should have been suppressed as fruit of the illegal entry. The trial court's ruling did not address these issues, and we will leave them for the trial court to resolve on remand.
III. Conclusion
{ } Based on the reasoning set forth above, we hereby sustain Cooper's assignments of error insofar as he contends the trial court erred in failing to suppress the blue jacket discovered inside his home and the incriminating statement he made inside the home about a committing a theft rather than a robbery and using a BB gun rather than a real gun. With regard to the subsequent incriminating statements Cooper made at the Dayton Safety Building, the matter is remanded for the trial court to determine in the first instance whether those statements are admissible despite the prior illegal entry into Cooper's home.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
WOLFF, J., and FAIN, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|