14 N.Y.3d 323 (2010)

A confession obtained after an illegal arrest is admissible if the connection between the arrest and the confession is sufficiently attenuated, considering factors such as temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.

Summary

Bradford, a registered sex offender, was arrested without probable cause after being found with two missing teenage girls. After being given Miranda warnings and initially declining to speak, Bradford confessed to having sex with one of the girls after police obtained statements from the girls establishing probable cause. The New York Court of Appeals held that the confession was admissible because it was sufficiently attenuated from the illegal arrest. The court emphasized that the intervening statements from the girls, the passage of time, and the lack of flagrant police misconduct supported attenuation.

Facts

Defendant, a registered sex offender, began a relationship with a 16-year-old girl (“Jane”). Jane and her 15-year-old sister went missing after their mother’s boyfriend observed a grey Mitsubishi, registered to the defendant, near their house. Police located the defendant with the two girls at his apartment complex. A trooper handcuffed the defendant. The girls were interviewed and revealed that the defendant had provided them with alcohol and had sex with Jane. After being confronted with these statements, the defendant confessed to the crimes.

Procedural History

The defendant was charged with rape and endangering the welfare of a child. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress his confession. The defendant was convicted. The Appellate Division modified the orders of protection but otherwise affirmed the conviction, finding the confession admissible despite the illegal arrest because it was sufficiently attenuated. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue(s)

Whether the defendant’s confession should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest, or whether the confession was sufficiently attenuated from the illegal arrest to be admissible.

Holding

No, the confession was admissible because it was sufficiently attenuated from the illegal arrest because of the intervening statements from the victims, the lapse of time, and the lack of flagrant misconduct by the police.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals applied the attenuation doctrine, considering the temporal proximity of the arrest and confession, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. The court emphasized that “a confession that is made after an arrest without probable cause is not subject to suppression if the People adequately demonstrate that the inculpatory admission was ‘attenuated’ from the improper detention; in other words, it was ‘acquired by means sufficiently distinguishable from the arrest to be purged of the illegality.’” The court highlighted that Miranda warnings were given, the defendant initially declined to speak, the police obtained independent statements from the girls establishing probable cause, and there was no evidence of bad faith or flagrant misconduct by the police. The court found that the intervening statements from Jane and her sister were obtained independently of the defendant’s detention, and the confrontation with these statements was a “significant attenuating factor” and the “precipitating cause” of his admissions. Though probable cause was lacking for the initial detention, the officer had a