Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

New York Vs. Harris

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1990

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

55 entries 3 linked 52 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Ceccolini US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1978
  2. United States Vs. Crews US Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1980
  3. United States Vs. Leon US Supreme Court · Jul 05, 1984
  4. U.S. 14 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court New York v. Harris
    Search
  5. U.S. 14 (1990) New York v. Harris
    Search
  6. he signed a written inculpatory statement. The New York trial court suppressed the first statement under Payton v. New
    Search
  7. degree murder. The Appellate Division affirmed, but the State Court of Appeals reversed. Applying the rule of Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  8. where its officers have violated the law must bear some relation to the purposes which the law serves. United States v. Ceccolini
    Search
  9. protection for statements made outside their premises where the police have probable cause to make an arrest. Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  10. therefore, his subsequent statement was not an exploitation of the illegal entry into his home. Cf. United States v. Crews
    Search
  11. suppressed because the police, by entering Harris' home without a warrant and without his consent, violated Payton v. New
    Search
  12. and that the warrantless arrest therefore violated Payton even though there was probable cause. Applying Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  13. arrest in a public place was permissible as long as the arresting officer had probable cause, see United States v. Watson
    Search
  14. here that Harris was immune from prosecution because his person was the fruit of an illegal arrest. United States v. Crews
    Search
  15. made by him after proper warnings would no doubt be admissible. This case is therefore different from Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  16. U. S. 590 (1975), Dunaway v. New
    Search
  17. York, 442 U. S. 200 (1979), and Taylor v. Alabama
    Search
  18. should be suppressed when they bear a sufficiently close relationship to the underlying illegality. See also Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  19. n cases such as Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  20. it the fruit of having been arrested in the home rather than someplace else. The case is analogous to United States v. Crews
    Search
  21. the product of coercion, if Miranda warnings were not given, or if there was a violation of the rule of Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  22. and exigent circumstances did not exist. An arrest in such circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment. See Payton v. New
    Search
  23. s exclusionary rule is to eliminate incentives for police officers to violate that Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Leon
    Search
  24. Murray v. United
    Search
  25. States, 487 U. S. 533 , 487 U. S. 536 -537 (1988) (citing Nardone v. United
    Search
  26. Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  27. Wong Sun, supra, at 371 U. S. 488 (quoting J. Maguire, Evidence of Guilt, 221 (1959)). Accord, Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  28. Dunaway v. New
    Search
  29. Taylor v. Alabama
    Search
  30. the illegal arrest and Harris' confession, without any intervening factor other than the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  31. Brown, supra, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 603 (citing Westover v. United
    Search
  32. States, decided with Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  33. U.S. at 445 U. S. 589 -590 (ellipses in original) (quoting Silverman v. United
    Search
  34. States, 365 U. S. 505 , 365 U. S. 511 (1961)). See also California v. Ciraolo
    Search
  35. the statement. The only Supreme Court case in which the majority even attempts to find support is United States v. Crews
    Search
  36. objectively reasonable reliance on a facially valid warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. United States v. Leon
    Search
  37. may not question a suspect in the absence of an attorney once such an accusatory instrument has been filed. People v. Samuels
    Search
  38. U.S. Supreme Court New York v. Harris
    Search
  39. Payton v. New
    Search
  40. of Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  41. Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  42. Cf. United States v. Crews
    Search
  43. Applying Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  44. and Taylor v. Alabama
    Search
  45. Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  46. of Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  47. the Fourth Amendment. See Payton v. New
    Search
  48. Nardone v. United
    Search
  49. Accord, Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  50. Miranda v. Arizona
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial