Just as the Constitution requires the suppression of evidence that police seize in an illegal arrest, the law limits that suppression to evidence that was obtained illegally, a New York appeals court has ruled.
Items collected from a defendant must be excluded from the evidence presented against him at trial if the police lacked probable cause to arrest him, but his identification by the victim and statements he later makes to police after waiving his Miranda rights are admissible, the Appellate Division’s fourth department ruled on Sept. 30.
The appeal arose from a conviction of Fleming Ashford III, who in Oct. 2011 pleaded guilty to armed robbery in the first degree. The case began when police in Rochester responded after midnight to the robbery of a taxi driver. Less than 10 minutes later, they found Ashford, who matched the driver’s description, running from them near the crime scene. After detaining him, an officer searched Ashford and seized a phone, money and a do-rag from the pocket of his jeans.
The police then brought Ashford in front of the driver, who identified Ashford as the person who robbed him. From there, police took Ashford to the station, where he waived his right to remain silent. From a courtyard near where Ashford was arrested, police retrieved a gun, some clothing and keys that belonged to the victim.
On appeal, Ashford asserted that the police lacked probable cause to arrest and search him, and, consequently, that the physical evidence, his identification by the driver and his statements to police all should have been suppressed.
The court disagreed with respect to the driver’s identification of Ashford, Ashford’s statements to police and the items collected from the courtyard.
“Here, defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that the showup identification of him, his statements to the police, and the items seized… were causally related to his unlawful arrest prior to the showup identification procedure,” Associate Justice John Centra wrote for the panel. (In New York, running from the police, by itself, does not give police probable cause to stop and search you.)
The appellate division agreed with Ashford as to the evidence seized from him but held that police “had reasonable suspicion to pursue defendant and detain him for the purpose of the showup identification,” according to Centra, who vacated Ashford’s plea “inasmuch as the erroneous suppression ruling may have affected [his] decision to plead guilty.”
According to the court, police were permitted to frisk Ashford to check for weapons but not permitted to search him. “In other words,” added Centra, “only evidence that has been come at by exploitation of that illegality should be suppressed.” (citation omitted).