Thurgood Marshall

Name: New York v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion
Author: Thurgood Marshall

Summary

“New York v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion”, is a work by Thurgood Marshall. It explores elements such as suspect, the Fourth Amendment and violation.

Quotes from New York v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion (Thurgood Marshall)

Thurgood Marshall, New York v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion

“ Police officers are well aware that simply because a statement is "voluntary" does not mean that it was entirely unaffected by the Fourth Amendment violation. See Brown, supra, 422 U.S., at 601-602, 95 S.Ct., at 2260-2261. Indeed, if the Fourth Amendment required exclusion only of statements taken in violation of the Fifth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment would serve no independent purpose. A regime that suppresses only some fruits of constitutional violations is a regime that barely begins to eliminate the incentives to violate the Constitution. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall, New York v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion

“ Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the Court's ruling is its practical consequences for the deterrence of Payton violations. Imagine a police officer who has probable cause to arrest a suspect but lacks a warrant. The officer knows if he were to break into the home to make the arrest without first securing a warrant, he would violate the Fourth Amendment and any evidence he finds in the house would be suppressed. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall, New York v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion

“ Certainly, the police were not required to release Harris or forgo his prosecution simply because officers arrested him in violation of Payton. But it is a dramatic leap from that unexceptionable proposition to the suggestion that the Payton violation thus had no effect once the police took Harris from his home. The Court's view to the contrary appears to rest on a cramped understanding of the purposes underlying Payton. The home is a private place, more private than any other. An invasion into the home is therefore the worst kind of invasion of privacy. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall, New York v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion

“ A person who is forcibly separated from his family and home in the dark of night after uniformed officers have broken down his door, handcuffed him, and forced him at gunpoint to accompany them to a police station does not suddenly breathe a sigh of relief at the moment he is dragged across his doorstep. Rather, the suspect is likely to be so frightened and rattled that he will say something incriminating. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall, New York v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion

“ But the majority chooses no such unremarkable battleground. Instead, the Court redrafts our cases in the service of conclusions they straightforwardly and explicitly reject. Specifically, the Court finds suppression unwarranted on the authority of its newly fashioned per se rule. In the majority's view, when police officers make a warrantless home arrest in violation of Payton, their physical exit from the suspect's home necessarily breaks the causal chain between the illegality and any subsequent statement by the suspect, such that the statement is admissible regardless of the Brown factors. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall, New York v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion

“ Underlying this view is the theory that officers fear that if their judgment as to the constitutionality of their conduct turns out to be wrong, the consequences of their misjudgments may be too costly to justify the possible law enforcement benefits. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall, New York v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion

“ Unlike an arrest without probable cause, a Payton violation alone does not make the subsequent detention of the suspect illegal. Thus, the Court argues, no statement made after a Payton violation has ended is suppressible by reason of the Fourth Amendment violation as long as the police have probable cause. [4]
The majority's theory lacks any support in our cases. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall, New York v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion

“ Even in that limited context, I think that suppression is required. See id., at 928-960, 104 S.Ct., at 3430-3445 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting) .↑ The "restrictions on questioning" to which the court refers are restrictions imposed by New York law. New York law provides that an arrest warrant may not issue until an "accusatory instrument" has been filed against the suspect. N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § 120.20 (McKinney 1981) . The New York courts have held that police officers may not question a suspect in the absence of an attorney once such an accusatory instrument has been filed. ”

Thurgood Marshall

Summary

Quotes from New York v. Harris — Dissenting Opinion (Thurgood Marshall)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature