• An Illegal Arrest Does Not Necessarily Spoil a Confession

United States Supreme Court Action

• Emergency Aid Exception Justifies Warrantless Home Entry
• Pending Cases: Need for Forensic Lab Technicians to Testify in Court; Adequacy of Miranda Warnings; Monitoring of Police Officers’ Text Messages

Federal and State Decisions

• Arrest, Search and Seizure Issues: search warrants; probable cause; drugs nexus to residence; porno computer images; search incident to arrest; automobiles; good-faith exception; protective sweep; doorstep arrest; inventory search policy; closed containers; stop and frisk; reasonable suspicion; 911 call; protective car search; public drinking; right to privacy; shipper’s authority to consent to search; language issues; scope; home; co-occupant; police misconduct
• Interrogation Issues: Miranda; two-part interrogation techniques; voluntariness; police offer to help; negotiation
• Crimes; Evidence; Trial Procedure: impersonating a police officer; false representation to police officer; evasion of police vehicle; pursuit procedures; police expert witness; prior criminal conduct; courtroom security measures
• Civil Liability/Personnel Law Issues: false arrest; child endangerment; qualified immunity; excessive force; tasers; minor offenses; four-point restraints; delay in obtaining medical assistance for arrestees; liability for pursuits; shocks the conscience test; sex discrimination; employer’s legitimate expectations; indirect method of proof; police training meetings; religious speakers; police discipline; breathalyzer tests after use of weapon; termination; lax prisoner security; retaliation for working conditions’ complaints; police plaintiff; employer failure to protect from workplace dangers

Contents

Special Bulletin: An Illegal Arrest Does Not Necessarily Spoil a Confession
People v. Salgado No. 1-08-2832 (Ill.App. 2009).
http://state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2009/1stDistrict/December/1082832.pdf


A confession given by a defendant following an illegal arrest may be admissible if it is sufficiently attenuated from any illegality. Whether a confession was obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest or was obtained “by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint” from the illegal arrest is determined by looking at four factors of attenuation.

“. . . There are four factors to consider in an attenuation analysis: (1) whether Miranda warnings were given; (2) the proximity of time between defendant’s arrest and statement; (3) whether there were intervening circumstances; and (4) the flagrancy of police misconduct. People v. Klimawicze, 352 Ill. App. 3d 13, 19 (2004), citing Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416, 427, 95 S. Ct. 2254, 2261-62 (1975). ‘Typically, intervening circumstances and flagrancy of police misconduct are the two key factors in determining whether police exploited the illegal arrest to obtain a confession. [Citations.]’ Klimawicze, 352 Ill. App. 3d at 19. . . .”

““In the instant case, while defendant was brought to the police station in connection with the murder on February 3, 2000, between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m., his official arrest occurred at 9 a.m. on February 4, 2000. In our previous order, based on the totality of the circumstances, we concluded the ‘defendant was illegally held in custody beginning at approximately midnight, 12 a.m. on February 4, 2000, at the point when he was returned to the interview room after denying involvement in the murder.’ Salgado I, slip op. at 18. However, as previously noted, within two hours, by 2 a.m. on February 4, 2000, there was probable cause to arrest defendant based on the information provided by Navarro [witness]. Defendant’s attorney arrived at Area One on the morning of February 4, 2000, between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. and spoke to defendant. After he left, Detective Zalatoris continued his investigation and completed his February 4th shift without speaking to defendant again that day.

“On February 5, 2000, Zalatoris returned to work and checked on defendant around 9 a.m. Defendant asked Zalatoris if he could talk to him. After being advised of his Miranda rights, defendant confessed to murdering Rodarte. At that point in time, defendant had been at the police station for approximately 36 hours. Later on February 5, 2000, defendant showed Zalatoris where he threw the murder weapon off the California Avenue bridge over the south branch of the Chicago River. By 5 p.m. on February 5, 2000, Assistant State’s Attorney Dan Tiernan interviewed defendant. Defendant’s statement in this interview was substantially similar to the statement he gave the detectives earlier that morning. At 7:55 p.m. on February 5, 2000, defendant gave a videotaped statement. This was approximately 47 hours after being brought to the police station.

“The length of defendant’s detention and the chronology of the various interrogation sessions indicate that defendant had adequate time to consider the situation and his decision to make the incriminating statements. The record reflects the police conducted a proper investigation and intervening circumstances provided attenuation. Although the passage of time can be considered an ambiguous factor, in the instant case, the passage of time weighs in favor of attenuation.”