holding that the defendant's confession was the direct result of the illegal discovery of narcotics and that the taint of the illegally seized evidence had not been removed
How later courts described this case
- holding that the defendant's confession was the direct result of the illegal discovery of narcotics and that the taint of the illegally seized evidence had not been removed
- holding a “confession, resulting from [an unlawful] seizure and ... subsequent narcotics arrest, was the ‘fruit of the poisoned tree’ and therefore inadmissible”
- impermissible for narcotics officers to make traffic arrest as pre text to search defendant’s car incident to arrest
- statement taken from defendant, who knew of illegal ly seized evidence because he had been present when it was seized a few hours earlier, inadmissible at trial
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by United States v. Reginald James Causey, 834 F.2d 1179 (1987)
391 F.2d 308, 318 (5th Cir.1968) (holding a “confession, resulting from [an unlawful] seizure and ... subsequent narcotics arrest, was the ‘fruit of the poisoned tree’ and therefore inadmissible”), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Causey, 834 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir.1987).
The opinion
COLEMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result):
I concur in the result and in all of the opinion except portions of Part III, particularly Section B thereof. As always, Judge Wisdom has written a most thorough, scholarly opinion. In my view, however, the decisive point is that as to traffic violations the arrest in this case was pretextual. We do not, therefore, reach, and it is unnecessary to express an opinion on, the validity or invalidity of searches executed when an officer does make a bona fide arrest for a traffic violation committed in his presence.