discussing different concurring opinions in Crews and observing that majority of justices rejected claim that “a defendant’s face can be a suppressible fruit of an illegal arrest”
How later courts described this case
- discussing different concurring opinions in Crews and observing that majority of justices rejected claim that “a defendant’s face can be a suppressible fruit of an illegal arrest”
- holding sufficient attenuating factors existed dissipating taint of illegal arrest from derivative evidence obtained as a result of arrest
- “No evidence obtained ... in violation of ... the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case.”
- exclusion not justified where marginal or nonexistent deterrent benefits
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WOMACK, J.,
concurring, in which JOHNSON and COCHRAN, JJ., joined.
The court of appeals held that the appellant’s Fourth Amendment objections were properly overruled because no evidence that was obtained from the illegal seizure in Arizona was admitted in his trial in Texas. See Thornton v. State, No. 2-01-152-CR (Tex.Ct App.-Fort Worth Dec. 12, 2002) (unpublished). I agree, and on that basis I concur in the judgment of the Court.