ILLEGAL ARREST NOT EXCUSED BY SUBSEQUENT DISCOVERY OF ARREST WARRANT

 In a case where the defendant was convicted of cocaine possession following his arrest in Bourne, in Kendall County, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio reversed the decision of the trial court that refused to grant the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence against him. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial without the evidence. When this happens, the State will normally have to dismiss the case, since there will be no evidence that was not obtained by the police.

The police acted illegally when they apprehended the defendant on the sole grounds that it was a bad neighborhood and that the defendant ran away when he saw them. The police found drugs on the defendant after the illegal arrest.https://askcompetentlawyer.com/complex-litigation/ The question on appeal was whether subsequent discovery of active warrants excused the otherwise illegal conduct.

The Court of Appeals applied the standard “attenuation” test for this type of circumstance: how long was it between the illegal detention and discovery of the evidence? Were there intervening circumstances that would break the link between the illegal detention and the discovery of the evidence? Did the police act on purpose or were the circumstances basically reasonable such as not to constitute a flagrant disregard for the defendant’s rights? The purpose of the test is to balance the enforcement of constitutional rights, which means fairness to the defendant and to future defendants, with the need to deter the police from repeating the conduct.

The Court held that the test should be applied in the defendant’s favor, primarily because there was a prompt link between the illegality and discovery of the evidence. The police did not act flagrantly, but since there was no discovery of any warrant during the detention, the link was not broken.