at p. 328 of 234 Md.
How later courts described this case
- at p. 328 of 234 Md.
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Dougher v. State, 236 Md. 629 (1964)
Dailey v. State, 234 Md. 325, is distinguishable, for there the officers were trespassers, and opened the door with a key.
The opinion
Brune, C. J.,
filed the following separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
With regard to the judgments upon Indictments Nos. 1336, 1341 and 1348,1 concur in the opinion of the court.
With regard to the judgments upon Indictments Nos. 1338, 1339 and 1340 and Nos. 1343-1347 (inclusive), I dissent for substantially the same reason which is stated in my dissents in Prescoe v. State, 231 Md. 486, 495 , 191 A. 2d 226 , in Stewart v. State, 232 Md. 318, 326 , 193 A. 2d 40 , and in Peal v. State, *333 232 Md. 329, 334 , 193 A. 2d 53 . 1 This is, in brief, that the confessions here were the product of an illegal arrest and hence, in my view, were inadmissible under Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 , and Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 . And see Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U. S. 85 , where evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure may have induced a confession and it was held that its admission could not be treated as non-prejudicial.
Here the appellant was arrested at about 12:30 A.M. and the questioning which produced his admissions began while he was in custody at a police station at about 1:15 A.M. of the same day. Any “taint” from the concededly illegal arrest could not, I think, have become so attenuated (see Wong Sun, 371 U. S. at 491 ) as to have been dissipated when the questioning occurred.
. I now understand that in none of the cases cited above which have previously been decided by this Court, has review by the Supreme Court been sought, despite prior intimations to the contrary, at least as to Prescoe , which were referred to in my dissent in Stewart .