People v. Gethers, 86 N.Y.2d 159 (1995)

An identification of a suspect made immediately following an illegal arrest and detention, where the arrest was for the purpose of the identification, is a product of the illegal arrest and must be suppressed.

Summary

Gethers was arrested for selling cocaine as part of a buy and bust operation. A pretrial suppression hearing revealed that the arresting officer lacked probable cause. The physical evidence was suppressed, but the identification evidence was allowed. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the identification was tainted by the illegal arrest and ordered a new trial preceded by an independent source hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the confirmatory identification made immediately after the illegal arrest should have been suppressed because it was a direct result of the illegal seizure and detention. The court distinguished this case from situations involving suggestive identification procedures, focusing instead on the causal link between the illegal arrest and the identification.

Facts

Undercover Detective Rye purchased cocaine from two sellers. She transmitted a description of the sellers to Officer Bell. Bell located and arrested Gethers and another man. Immediately after the arrest, Bell walked the two men to a street corner. Detective Rye then performed a drive-by identification, confirming Gethers as one of the sellers.

Procedural History

At the pretrial suppression hearing, the court suppressed physical evidence due to a lack of probable cause for the arrest. However, the court denied the motion to suppress the identification evidence. Gethers was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance. The Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial preceded by an independent source hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Detective Rye’s on-the-scene confirmatory identification must be suppressed as a product of the illegal arrest.

2. Whether Detective Rye’s in-court identification of defendant was improperly admitted in the absence of evidence at the suppression hearing of an independent source.

Holding

1. Yes, because the identification was made immediately following the illegal arrest and detention, and the illegal seizure and detention of the defendant made the identification possible, and was done for the purpose of displaying him to the undercover officer.

2. Yes, because there was no evidence at the suppression hearing of an independent source upon which the hearing court could rely to find that the in-court identification was come at by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the identification of Gethers was a direct product of the illegal arrest. It stated that evidence obtained through the exploitation of illegal police conduct must be suppressed, citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). The court found that the causal link between the arrest and identification was clear. The illegal seizure made the identification possible, and the purpose of the arrest was to display Gethers to the undercover officer. The court distinguished this case from People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921 (1989), which dealt with the suggestiveness of identification procedures, a due process issue, while this case concerned the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal seizures. The court stated, “[A]n identification derived from exploitation of an illegal arrest is equally tainted whether made by a trained officer or a lay person.” Regarding the in-court identification, the Court emphasized that there was no evidence presented at the suppression hearing regarding an independent source for the identification, as required by People v. James, 67 N.Y.2d 662 (1986).