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
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, Rule 25(a), subpar. (b), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.