People v. Rossi, 79 N.Y.2d 952 (1992)
Evidence obtained as a direct result of an unlawful arrest, even if tangentially related to the execution of a valid search warrant, is inadmissible if it provides the necessary link to incriminating evidence.
Summary
Rossi was unlawfully arrested outside a room suspected of illegal gambling. A subsequent search of the room pursuant to a valid warrant yielded a jacket. At trial, an officer testified that Rossi, after being brought back to the room post-arrest, put on the jacket. The New York Court of Appeals held that while the jacket itself was admissible due to the valid warrant, the officer’s testimony connecting Rossi to the jacket should have been suppressed because it was a direct result of the unlawful arrest. Since the jacket was the only direct link between Rossi and the gambling activities, the indictment was dismissed.
Facts
Defendant Rossi was arrested in the hallway outside room 406, which was suspected of being used for illegal gambling activities.
The arrest occurred before the execution of a search warrant for the room.
It was undisputed that the arrest was unlawful.
After the unlawful arrest, police officers brought Rossi back into room 406.
An officer testified that Rossi was instructed to sit down, sat in a chair with a jacket hanging on the back, and then put on the jacket.
A jacket was recovered from the room during the execution of a valid search warrant.
Procedural History
Rossi moved to suppress evidence, including statements and evidence “flowing from” the unlawful arrest, requesting a Dunaway hearing.
The Supreme Court denied the motion without a hearing, citing the valid search warrant.
At trial, the jacket and the officer’s testimony about Rossi putting on the jacket were admitted into evidence.
Rossi was convicted of gambling-related offenses.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the testimony about the jacket resulted solely from the execution of the warrant.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether testimony regarding the defendant’s post-arrest conduct, specifically putting on a jacket found during the execution of a valid search warrant, should be suppressed as a product of an unlawful arrest.
Holding
Yes, because the testimony connecting the defendant to the jacket, which was the only direct link to the gambling activities, resulted directly from the unlawful arrest and asportation, not from the lawful execution of the search warrant.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the jacket itself was admissible as evidence seized during the execution of a valid search warrant, citing People v. Arnau, 58 N.Y.2d 27 (1982).
However, the jacket had no incriminating value without evidence connecting it to Rossi.
The crucial connecting evidence was the arresting officer’s testimony about Rossi’s actions after his unlawful arrest: being brought back to the room and putting on the jacket. This testimony should have been suppressed.
The court relied on Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963), stating that evidence derived from an illegal arrest is inadmissible.
The court emphasized that the officer’s testimony was a direct consequence of the illegal arrest, not an independent discovery during the warrant execution.
Because the suppressed testimony was the only evidence linking Rossi to the jacket, and the jacket was the only direct link to the gambling activities, the Court concluded that the indictment should be dismissed.
The court stated: “This should have been suppressed as it resulted, not from the lawful execution of a valid search warrant, but from defendant’s wrongful arrest (see, Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471, 485-486).”
The court reasoned that allowing the testimony would effectively nullify the protection against unlawful arrests.