30.06.2014 Views

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Product of a Constitutional Violation: A suspect’s consent to search given<br />

immediately (i.e., without sufficient intervening factors) after each of the<br />

following will likely be held to be invalid:<br />

Illegal entry, detention or arrest. (People v. Haven (1963) 59<br />

Cal.2 nd 713, 719; People v. Poole (1986) 182 Cal.App.3 rd 1004,<br />

1012; People v. $48,715 United States Currency (1997) 58<br />

Cal.App.4 th 1507; United States v. Washington (2004) 387 F.3 rd<br />

1060; People v. Krohn (2007) 149 Cal.App.4 th 1294.)<br />

But, note that the fact that a suspect is being illegally<br />

detained does not necessarily mean, by itself, that the<br />

consent is involuntary. (See People v. Llamas (1991) 235<br />

Cal.App.3 rd 441; noting, but not addressing the issue<br />

whether being illegally detained invalidated a consent<br />

under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.)<br />

Under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine,<br />

subsequent events may dispel the coercive taint of<br />

the initial illegality, making a subsequent consent<br />

lawful. (See United States v. Ibarra (10 th Cir.<br />

1992) 955 F.2 nd 1405, 1411, fn. 8.)<br />

“Where an illegal detention occurs, unless<br />

‘subsequent events adequately dispel the coercive<br />

taint of the initial illegality, i.e., where there is no<br />

longer causality, the subsequent consent is’<br />

ineffective. (Citations.)” (People v. Zamudio<br />

(2008) 43 Cal.4 th 327, 341.)<br />

Illegal Detention: As a “seizure” of one’s person, the<br />

products of an illegal detention are also subject to being<br />

suppressed under the Exclusionary Rule. (See People v.<br />

Krohn, supra; detaining defendant for drinking in public,<br />

when he was not in a public place, is an illegal detention<br />

<strong>and</strong> requires the suppression of the controlled substances<br />

found on his person in a subsequent consensual search.)<br />

“Where an illegal detention occurs, unless<br />

‘subsequent events adequately dispel the coercive<br />

taint of the initial illegality, i.e., where there is no<br />

longer causality, the subsequent consent is’<br />

ineffective.” People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4 th<br />

327, 340; citing People v. $48,715 United States<br />

Currency (1997) 58 Cal.App.4 th 1507, 1514.)<br />

© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved<br />

666

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!