“A person who is stopped or detained illegally is not immunized from prosecution for crimes committed during his detention. Appellant’s false statement of citizenship was a new and distinct crime. His prosecution for this new crime is not barred by the exclusionary rule.”
U.S. v. Sledge (8th Circuit—Nebraska)
The court found that Sledge had been subjected to an illegal detention and search; however, when he resisted the search and ran from the officers, he committed a new crime that justified arrest and search, resulting in the seizure of narcotics. His suppression motion was denied under the principles applied in similar cases, as the court explained:
“Sledge forfeited any Fourth Amendment protection by resisting and running away, thus creating probable cause for arrest and incidental search. Even assuming the initial detention and pat-down search of Sledge were invalid, Sledge’s actions provided independent grounds for his arrest and the cocaine found in the search incident to that arrest is admissible.”
U.S. v. Mitchell (9th Circuit—Hawaii)
During an arguably illegal de facto arrest by Secret Service agents at the Honolulu airport, Leroy Mitchell made repeated threats to kill the president, declaring that he was going to drown the president in the ocean. Charged with unlawful threats, he tried to suppress his statements as the fruits of unlawful arrest, thereby barring any prosecution. The court made the following observations:
“A person does not have a license to kill a police officer merely because the officer arrested him illegally. When Mitchell made his threat at the Honolulu airport, he committed a felony. His statements threatening the life of the president were not suppressible as the fruit of an illegal arrest. The mere fact that he may have been arrested illegally does not serve to bar prosecution of that offense.”
U.S. v. Bailey (11th Circuit—Georgia)
The suspect’s resistance and flight from an attempted unlawful detention by DEA agents provided grounds for arrest and a search that yielded large quantities of heroin and cocaine. Suppression was again denied, based on the same principles adopted by other circuits. The court said this:
“The police may legally arrest a defendant for a new, distinct crime, even if the new crime is in response to police misconduct. If the police have lawfully arrested a suspect, then they may properly conduct incident to that custodial arrest a full search of the person.”
Clark v. U.S. (D.C. Circuit)
Clark made illegal threats against the federal officer who was taking him into custody, though without clear-cut probable cause. Consistent with the prevailing view, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to suppress his threatening statements as the fruits of unlawful arrest, saying this:
“Since appellant’s response to the officer’s unlawful action created probable cause to arrest, there is no constitutional basis to suppress the evidence.”
Summary
If a review of one of your cases by a supervisor or prosecutor concludes that you initially attempted or committed an unjustifiable detention, arrest, entry, or search, that does not necessarily mean the suspect cannot be prosecuted for offenses he or she committed in reaction. Case authorities such as those briefed above may help establish that evidence is admissible and the suspect is prosecutable for new crimes, notwithstanding any initial missteps. “We are, after all, always engaged in a search for the truth in a criminal case.” (Oregon v. Hass)
As always, it’s a good idea to check with local prosecutors
or legal advisors to verify the rule followed by courts in your local jurisdiction.
Related Articles:
- Court: K-9 Search Violated Home Privacy
- N.C. Supreme Court: Universities Have Right to Withhold Records
- University Rule Against ‘Disrupting’ Employees Violates 1st Amendment
- High Court Shrugs Off Police Taping Ban
Devallis Rutledge is a former police officer and veteran prosecutor who currently serves as special counsel to the Los Angeles County district attorney. He is the author of 12 books, including “Investigative Constitutional Law.”
