The opinion
SANDERS, Justice
(concurring).
I fully concur in affirming the conviction, but add the following in elaboration of my reasons:
Before Police Officer Meyers picked up the defendant and took him to Police Headquarters, a “wanted” bulletin had gone out for the defendant’s arrest in connection with the robbery. A witness had tentatively identified him from a photograph as the robber. At Headquarters, Officer Meyers learned of the bulletin and surrendered the defendant to the detectives investigating the robbery. The seizure of the brown hat and the lineup identification occurred thereafter.
Assuming that the pickup whereby defendant was brought to Police Headquarters was an illegal arrest, as defendant contends, that custodial action passed out of the picture after he was arrested at Headquarters under the pickup bulletin. The lineup and seizure were accomplished by virtue of the headquarters arrest, not by “exploitation” of the challenged arrest. Hence, the lineup identification and demonstrative evidence are untainted. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 , 92 S.Ct. 1620 , 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972), handed down May 22, 1972.
For the reasons assigned, I concur.