People Failed to Prove Seizure of Cocaine at Police Station Was Not the Fruit of the Illegal Arrest—Attenuation Not Demonstrated
The Third Department determined the People failed to prove that the cocaine seized from the defendant at the police station after his arrest was not the product of the earlier illegal arrest of the defendant (fruit of the poisonous tree). At the Dunaway hearing, the People presented no witnesses concerning the seizure at the police station. County Court’s finding that the “attenuation” doctrine supported the legitimacy of the seizure at the station was therefore not supported by the record:
Under well-established exclusionary rule principles, where police have engaged in unlawful activity – here, by arresting defendant without probable cause – evidence which is a result of the “exploitation of that illegality” is subject to suppression as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” unless one of the recognized exceptions to the exclusionary rule is applicable … . The exception at issue here, as specifically decided by County Court thereby preserving the issue for appeal (see CPL 470.05 [2]…), is attenuation, that is, whether the production of the cocaine evidence during defendant’s illegal detention resulted from the exploitation of that illegality, directly or derivatively … . The focus of the attenuation exception is “on the presence or absence of ‘free will’ or voluntariness regarding a defendant’s . . . acts which follow illegal police conduct; thus, the attenuation inquiry resolves whether the causal connection between the police misconduct and the later discovery of the challenged evidence is so far removed as to dissipate the taint” … . “That determination requires consideration of the temporal proximity of the arrest and [acquisition of evidence] . . ., the presence of intervening circumstances and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct” … .
Given the complete lack of testimony at the Dunaway hearing regarding the post-illegal-arrest incident at the police station – including any intervening circumstances – in which cocaine evidence was reportedly seized from defendant’s person, we find that the People failed to satisfy their burden of proving the applicability of the attenuation exception. That is, the People did not prove that the evidence was not acquired by exploiting the illegal arrest but, rather, came about by means “sufficiently distinguishable from [the illegality] to be purged of illegality” … . Thus, County Court’s finding of attenuation is not supported by the hearing record. People v Small, 103485, 3rd Dept 10-17-13