ÿWPC0/ …# VU:a %› 0 (¡4ÉÝ 0§ì 0D“ × w@× 0J 0Ta 0^µ 0h 0r{ í 0|õ 0†q 0÷ 1u‡ U ,ü 0d( BŒU,©U*ÕB)ÿ D3(DC[ AMž 0@ëb+3RJœæ¸&ž\Äu "¥•$v~:&vÓ¸' AO‹-ÆÚ- 0D . D/ä. B/˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡íb¸ |Ôô¡3|x(W(2Ð}$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€òèáòXXÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó kDlDmVnoDpDqrDsÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò- ù- Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òJune€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó HÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€(ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€According€to€testimony€from€Detective€Baker,€Huddleston€had€been€seen€by€a€policeÏofficer€in€the€vicinity€of€the€robbery€on€the€morning€it€occurred,€headed€in€the€same€direction€asÏthe€robber.€€When€stopped€and€questioned€by€the€officer,€Huddleston€had€given€a€false€name.€€InÏaddition,€Huddleston's€car€matched€the€description€of€the€car€involved€in€the€Trenton€robbery.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€(ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€In€most€counties€in€Tennessee,€the€initial€appearance€proceeding€is€comprised€of€both€aÏprobable€cause€determination€and€the€fixing€of€pretrial€bail.€€òòSeeóó€David€Raybin,€òòTennesseeÏCriminal€Practice€and€Procedureóó,€ðð€3.2;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Tenn.€Atty.€Gen.€Op.€No.€91„84,€at€p.€3Ï(September€20,€1991).€Ì ÜÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€(ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Although€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment's€warrant€requirement€for€a€search€willÏresult€in€suppression€of€evidence€obtained€despite€an€after„the„fact€judicial€determination€ofÏprobable€cause,€€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment's€rule€against€warrantless€arrests€in€a€dwellingÏgenerally€does€not€lead€to€suppression€of€a€post„arrest€confession.€€òòSeeóó€òòVale€v.€Louisianaóó,€399ÏU.S.€30,€35,€90€S.Ct.€1969,1972,€26€L.Ed.2d€409€(1970);€òòNew€York€v.€Harrisóó,€495€U.S.€14,€110ÏS.Ct.€1640,€109€L.Ed.2d€13€(1990).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€(ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€òòUnited€States€v.€Salvuccióó,€448€U.S.€83,€100€S.Ct.€2547,€65€L.Ed.2d€619€(1980)Ï(defendants€may€claim€benefits€of€exclusionary€rule€only€if€their€personal€Fourth€AmendmentÏrights€have€been€violated);€òòUnited€States€v.€Havensóó,€446€U.S.€620,€100€S.Ct.€1912,€64€L.Ed.2dÏ559€(1980)€(illegally€seized€evidence€is€admissible€to€impeach€the€testimony€of€the€person€whoseÏrights€were€violated);€òòUnited€States€v.€Calandraóó,€414€U.S.€338,€94€S.Ct.€613,€38€L.Ed.2d€561Ï(1974)€(evidence€seized€in€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€may€be€used€in€grand€juryÏhearings);€òòUnited€States€v.€Janisóó,€428€U.S.€433,€96€S.Ct.€3021,€49€L.Ed.2d€1046€(1976)Ï(evidence€seized€in€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€may€be€used€to€recover€a€taxÏdelinquency);€òòI.N.S.€v.€Lopez„Mendozaóó,€468€U.S.€1032,€104€S.Ct.€3479,€82€L.Ed.2d€778€(1984)Ï(evidence€seized€in€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€may€be€used€in€deportation€hearings);ÏòòStone€v.€Powellóó,€428€U.S.€465,€96€S.Ct€3037,€49€L.Ed.2d€1067€(1976)€(federal€habeas€corpusÏrelief€cannot€be€granted€if€a€state€defendant's€Fourth€Amendment€claim€has€been€the€subject€of€aÏfull€and€fair€adjudication€in€state€court);€òòMichigan€v.€DeFillippoóó,€443€U.S.€31,€99€S.Ct.€2627,€61ÏL.Ed.2d€343€(1979)€(exclusionary€rule€inapplicable€to€evidence€uncovered€in€a€search€incident€toÏarrest€under€a€presumptively€valid€statute€that€is€later€declared€unconstitutional);€òòUnited€States€v.ÏLeonóó,€òòsupraóó€(exclusionary€rule€does€not€apply€when€a€police€officer€has€relied€in€good€faith€€on€aÏwarrant€that€later€turns€out€to€be€deficient€under€the€Fourth€Amendment).Ì RÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€(ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€òòHayes€v.€Floridaóó,€470€U.S.€811,€105€S.Ct.€1643,€84€L.Ed.2d€705€(1985);€òòFlorida€v.ÏRoyer›óó,€460€U.S.€491,€103€S.Ct.€1319,€75€L.Ed.2d€229€(1983);€òòcf.óó€òòReid€v.€Georgia€óó,€448€U.S.€438,Ï100€S.Ct.€2752,€65€L.Ed.2d€890€(1980)€(inadequate€grounds€for€temporary€investigative€stop);ÏòòœYbarra›€v.€Illinoisóó,€444€U.S.€85,€100€S.Ct.€338,€62€L.Ed.2d€238€(1979)€(same).Ì kÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€(ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€òòMichigan€v.€DeFillippoóó,€òòsupraóó€(exclusionary€rule€inapplicable€to€evidence€uncovered€in€aÏsearch€incident€to€arrest€under€a€presumptively€valid€statute€that€is€later€declared€unconstitutional);ÏòòUnited€States€v.€Leonóó,€òòsupraóó€(exclusionary€rule€does€not€apply€when€a€police€officer€has€relied€inÏgood€faith€€on€a€warrant€that€later€turns€out€to€be€deficient€under€the€Fourth€Amendment).Ì ›Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€(ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€only€Fourth€Amendment€violation€pursued€by€the€defendant€in€this€case€is€theÏòòMcLaughlinóó€violation.€€Thus,€our€discussion€of€whether€suppression€is€required€relates€to€thatÏquestion€alone.€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€''X„d&ÓÑ#€''Xd#ÑÔ€(ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€.ÑÑ7€w™XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑØ ØÓ&€XÐd&Óà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€òòò òFOR€PUBLICATIONóóó óÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àò òòòFiled:€€June€17,€1996ó óóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€GIBSON€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÙ€€ÙßL€,/+;+'h|£È` Å `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ÏDICK€JERMAN,€JR.,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà à€€€ÏJUDGEÌBENJAMIN€HUDDLESTON,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)à àNo.€Ï02S01„9410„CC„00069€ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòò òFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ó óÌà àóóÌTom€Criderà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌTwenty„Eighth€Judicial€DistrictÌTrenton,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGordon€W.€SmithÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssociate€Solicitor€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àClayburn€PeeplesÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTrenton,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€(„Ôò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€(XÔó ó€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDà àà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€€J.ÇÓÓ›à àThis€case€presents€two€issues€for€our€determination:€1)€whether€theÏdefendant's€constitutional€right€to€counsel€was€violated€by€police€questioningÏthat€occurred€three€days€after€the€defendant€refused€to€sign€a€"waiver€of€rights"Ïform;€and€(2)€whether€the€violation€of€defendant's€rights€under€either€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€5(a)€or€the€Fourth€Amendment€requires€suppression€of€his€confessionÏgiven€after€he€had€been€detained€for€more€than€seventy„two€hours,€before€theÏState€sought€a€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause€following€a€warrantlessÏarrest.ÌÌà àBecause€we€conclude€that€the€defendant's€refusal€to€sign€a€"waiver€ofÏrights"€form€did€not€constitute€an€invocation€of€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€toÏcounsel,€his€right€to€counsel€was€not€violated.€€However,€we€have€determined,Ïand€the€State€concedes,€that€the€defendant's€rights€under€both€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï5(a)€and€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€federal€constitution€were€violated€by€theÏState's€failure€to€seek€a€prompt€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause.€€TheÏviolation€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€5(a)€does€not€require€that€the€confession€beÏsuppressed€since€it€was€voluntarily€given€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€ÏSuppression€of€the€confession€is€required,€however,€in€this€case,€as€a€result€ofÏthe€Fourth€Amendment€violation.€€Accordingly,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals'Íjudgment€is€reversed€and€the€cause€remanded€for€a€new€trial€in€which€theÏdefendant's€confession€will€not€be€admissible.ÌÌà@ àò òòòBACKGROUNDóóó óÌà àThe€defendant,€Benjamin€Huddleston,€was€arrested€without€a€warrant€inÏthe€early€afternoon€of€Friday,€January€11,€1991,€for€his€suspected€involvementÏin€an€armed€robbery€of€a€convenience€store€in€Humboldt€the€previous€month.€ÏHuddleston€was€immediately€transported€to€the€Humboldt€City€jail€where€heÏwas€informed€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€and€questioned€about€the€Humboldt€robberyÏand€a€similar€robbery€that€had€occurred€in€Trenton,€Tennessee.€€Although€heÏrefused€to€sign€a€form€waiving€his€òòMirandaóó€rights,€Huddleston€answered€someÏquestions€about€the€robberies,€denying€his€knowledge€and€involvement€inÏthem.ÌÌà àHuddleston€was€detained€in€the€Humboldt€City€jail€over€the€weekend.€€HeÏwas€not€personally€taken€before€a€magistrate€during€this€period,€nor€did€theÏState€seek€a€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause€for€the€warrantless€arrest.ÌÌà àIn€the€afternoon€of€Monday,€January€14,€Huddleston€was€given€freshÏòòMirandaóó€warnings€and€again€questioned€by€Detective€Baker€about€theÍrobberies€in€Humboldt€and€Trenton.€€This€time,€he€signed€the€"waiver€of€rights"Ïform,€and€also€executed€a€statement€admitting€to€both€the€crimes.€€The€next€day,ÏTuesday€January€15,€more€than€seventy„two€hours€after€Huddleston's€arrest,ÏDetective€Baker,€relying€solely€upon€the€confession,€obtained€a€warrant€basedÏon€a€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause.€€Thereafter,€Huddleston€wasÏindicted€for€aggravated€robbery.€ÌÌà àPrior€to€trial,€Huddleston€moved€to€suppress,€arguing€that€the€confessionÏwas€inadmissible€because€it€was€obtained€as€a€result€of€the€State's€failure€toÏtake€him€before€a€magistrate€without€unnecessary€delay€as€required€by€bothÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€5(a)€and€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€federal€constitution€asÏconstrued€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court's€decision€in€òòCounty€ofÏRiverside€v.€McLaughlinóó,€500€U.S.€44,€111€S.Ct.€1661,€114€L.Ed.2d€49€(1991).€€ÌÌà àWhen€asked€on€cross„examination€at€the€suppression€hearing€whyÏHuddleston€had€been€held€in€jail€over€the€weekend,€Detective€Baker€replied,€"IÏwas€to€continue€the€investigation€and€develop€additional€evidence,€and€thereÏwas€a€hold€placed€on€him€by€the€Trenton€Police€Department€for€investigativeÏpurposes€also."€€Detective€Baker€also€admitted€that€he€believed€that€someÍadditional€investigation€was€necessary€before€he€could€establish€probableÏcause€and€secure€a€warrant€for€the€defendant's€arrest.€€ÌÌà àOn€redirect€examination,€the€State€attempted€to€prove€that€even€thoughÏthe€confession€had€been€the€sole€basis€for€the€warrant€application,€the€police€inÏfact€had,€at€the€time€of€the€arrest,€enough€evidence€through€independentÏsources€to€establish€probable€cause€to€arrest€Huddleston.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€€€€€€ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€suppression€hearing,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€theÏState€had€violated€Rule€5(a),€but€refused€to€suppress€Huddleston's€confession,Ïfinding€that€it€was€voluntary€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€€HuddlestonÏwas€later€convicted€of€aggravated€robbery,€and€the€conviction€was€affirmed€onÏappeal€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€We€granted€Huddleston's€applicationÏfor€permission€to€appeal€to€address€these€important€questions€of€criminalÏprocedure.ÌÌà@ àòòò òI.€€€RIGHT€TO€COUNSELóóó óÌà àInitially,€Huddleston€claims€that€his€confession€was€obtained€in€violationÏof€his€constitutional€right€to€counsel.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€his€initialÏrefusal€to€sign€the€"waiver€of€rights"€form€constituted€an€invocation€of€his€right€toÏcounsel€which€precluded€further€police€questioning.€€Because€his€confessionÏresulted€from€subsequent€police€questioning€in€violation€of€his€right€to€counsel,ÏHuddleston€argues€it€should€have€been€suppressed.ÌÌà àThe€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€does€not€attach€until€theÏadversarial€judicial€process€has€begun.€€òòMichigan€v.€Jacksonóó,€475€U.S.€625,Ï629,€106€S.Ct.€1404,€1407,€89€L.Ed.2d€631€(1986);€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878ÏS.W.2d€530,€547€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€Tennessee,€the€adversarial€judicial€processÏis€initiated€at€the€time€of€the€filing€of€the€formal€charge,€such€as€an€arrestÏwarrant,€indictment,€presentment,€or€preliminary€hearing€in€cases€where€aÏwarrant€was€not€obtained€prior€to€the€arrest.€€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€593€S.W.2d€280,Ï286€(Tenn.€1980);€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€795€S.W.2d€680,€685€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1990).€€At€the€time€he€gave€his€statement,€Huddleston€had€not€been€formallyÏcharged.€€Thus,€his€right€to€counsel€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€had€notÏattached€and€clearly€was€not€violated€in€this€case.€€ÌÌà à€In€contrast,€the€right€to€counsel€encompassed€within€the€right€againstÏself„incrimination€protected€by€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€is€triggered€whenever€a€suspect€requests€that€counsel€be€presentÏduring€police„initiated€custodial€interrogation.€€When€a€suspect€invokes€thatÏright€to€counsel,€police€must€cease€questioning€until€counsel€is€present.€€òòSeeóóÏòòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€86€S.Ct.€1602,€16€L.Ed.2d€694€(1966);ÏòòEdwards€v.€Arizonaóó,€451€U.S.€477,€101€S.Ct.€1880,€68€L.Ed.2d€378€(1981);ÏòòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€530.€€ÌÌà àHuddleston€claims€that€his€refusal€to€sign€the€waiver€of€rights€formÏconstituted€an€invocation€of€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€whichÏprecluded€further€questioning€outside€the€presence€of€his€attorney.€€Because€hisÏconfession€was€given€following€additional€police€questioning€outside€theÏpresence€of€his€attorney,€Huddleston€argues€that€his€confession€must€beÏsuppressed.ÌÌà àIn€òòMirandaóó,€the€Supreme€Court€did€not€adopt€a€rigid€formula€forÏinvocation€of€the€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€counsel.€€Recently€in€òòDavis€v.€UnitedÏStatesóó,€__€U.S.€__,€114€S.Ct.€2350,€129€L.Ed.2d€362€(1994),€however,€the€CourtÏstated€that€"[œi]nvocation›€of€the€òòMirandaóó€right€to€counsel€requires,€at€a€minimum,Ísome€statement€that€can€reasonably€be€construed€to€be€an€expression€of€aÏdesire€for€the€assistance€of€an€attorney."€€òòId.óó,€__€U.S.€at€__,€114€S.Ct.€2355Ï(internal€quotations€omitted).€€€€"Although€a€suspect€need€not€speak€with€theÏdiscrimination€of€an€Oxford€don,"€the€Court€emphasized€that€a€suspect€€"mustÏarticulate€his€desire€to€have€counsel€present€sufficiently€clearly€that€aÏreasonable€officer€would€understand€the€statement€to€be€a€request€for€anÏattorney."€€òòId.óó€€If€the€suspect€fails€to€make€such€an€unambiguous€statement,Ïpolice€need€not€cease€questioning.€ÌÌà àApplying€that€standard€to€the€facts€in€this€case,€it€is€clear€that€HuddlestonÏnever€made€an€unambiguous€request€for€counsel.€€In€refusing€to€sign€the€waiverÏof€rights€form,€Huddleston€said,€"I€œain't›€signing€nothing."€€Certainly,€noÏreasonable€police€officer€in€the€circumstances€would€understand€that€as€aÏrequest€for€an€attorney.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Butleróó,€441€U.S.€369,€99ÏS.Ct.€1755,€60€L.Ed.2d€286€(1979)€(holding€that€the€accused€waived€his€right€toÏcounsel€despite€his€refusal€to€sign€a€waiver€of€rights€form).€€€Accordingly,ÏHuddleston's€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€counsel€claim€is€without€merit.Ì̜Ǜà@ àòòò òII.€€€RULE€5(a)€VIOLATIONÌóóó óà àWe€must€next€consider€Huddleston's€contention€that€his€confessionÏshould€have€been€suppressed€because€the€State€violated€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€5(a)Ïby€detaining€him€for€more€than€seventy„two€hours€following€a€warrantless€arrestÏwithout€obtaining€a€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause.€€Because€of€theÏcoercive€and€intimidating€nature€of€police€detention,€Huddleston€urges€thisÏCourt€to€adopt€a€per€se€rule€requiring€exclusion€of€all€statements€given€during€aÏperiod€of€ð ðunnecessary€delayðð€in€violation€of€Rule€5(a).ÌÌà àWhile€the€State€agrees€that€the€evidence€supports€the€lower€courts'Ïfinding€that€Huddleston's€detention€violated€Rule€5(a),€it€contends€that€the€lowerÏcourts€correctly€held€that€the€violation€does€not€require€suppression€ofÏHuddleston's€statement€because€it€was€voluntarily€given€under€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances.€€Rule€5(a)€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà àAny€person€arrested€except€upon€a€capias€pursuant€to€anÏindictment€or€presentment€shall€be€taken€òòwithout€unnecessaryÏdelayóó€before€the€nearest€appropriate€magistrate€of€the€county€fromÏwhich€the€warrant€for€arrest€issued,€or€the€county€in€which€theÏalleged€offense€occurred€if€the€arrest€was€made€without€a€warrantÏunless€a€citation€is€issued€pursuant€to€Rule€3.5.€€If€a€personÏarrested€without€a€warrant€is€brought€before€a€magistrate,€anÏaffidavit€of€complaint€shall€be€filed€forthwith.€€When€an€arrestedÏperson€appears€initially€before€a€magistrate,€the€magistrate€shallÏproceed€in€accordance€with€this€rule.ÌÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added.)ÌÌà àWithout€question,€incarceration€for€any€period€of€time€is€inherentlyÏcoercive.€€The€custodial€environment€has€been€described€as€carrying€a€ð ðbadgeÏof€intimidation€[though]€not€physical€[which€is]€equally€destructive€of€humanÏdignity.ðð€€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€at€457,€86€S.Ct.€at€1619.€€Indeed,€theÏtechniques€used€in€custodial€interrogation€are€often€geared€to€producing€in€theÏaccused€a€compulsion€to€confess.€€òòSeeóó€òòIdóó.€384€U.S.€at€449„56;€86€S.Ct.€at€1615„19.€€When€a€suspect€is€detained€without€being€taken€before€a€neutral€personÏwho€explains€the€process,€issues€warnings,€and€assures€that€constitutionalÏrights€are€honored,€the€intimidating€environment€is€no€doubt€exacerbated.€ÏNevertheless,€most€courts€have€not€adopted€a€per€se€rule€of€exclusion,€butÏinstead€require€exclusion€of€a€confession€given€during€a€period€of€unnecessaryÏdelay€only€if€an€examination€of€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€reveals€that€theÏstatement€was€not€voluntarily€given.ÌÌà àFor€example,€in€òòState€v.€Readusóó,€764€S.W.2d€770€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988),€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€discussed€the€effect€of€a€violation€of€RuleÏ5(a)€on€the€admissibility€of€a€confession€obtained€during€the€period€of€Ï"unnecessary€delay."€€Rejecting€the€trial€court's€ruling€that€any€confessionÍobtained€within€the€period€of€"unnecessary€delay"€must€be€excluded,€theÏòòReadusóó€court€instead€held€that€the€admissibility€of€such€a€confession€is€to€beÏdetermined€by€the€traditional€voluntariness€test.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.ÏMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€327„28€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Kygeróó,€787ÏS.W.2d€13,€25€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).ÌÌà àIn€so€holding,€the€òòReadusóó€court€specifically€rejected€a€rule€that€wouldÏhave€required€suppression€of€any€confession€obtained€from€an€arrestee€duringÏa€period€of€"unnecessary€delay."€€While€recognizing€that€a€violation€of€Rule€5(a)Ïcould€result€in€the€suppression€of€a€confession€if€the€violation€was€a€factor€in€theÏstatement's€involuntariness,€the€court€in€òòReadusóó€concluded€that€"the€betterÏreasoned€cases€interpreting€'unreasonable€delay'€in€this€context€say€that€it€isÏone€factor€to€be€taken€into€account€in€evaluating€the€voluntariness€of€aÏconfession;€and€if€the€totality€of€the€surrounding€circumstances€indicates€that€aÏconfession€was€voluntarily€given,€it€shall€not€be€excluded€from€evidence€solelyÏbecause€of€a€delay€in€carrying€the€confessor€before€a€magistrate."€€òòIdóó,€764ÏS.W.2d€at€774.ÌÌà àIn€adopting€the€voluntariness€test,€the€òòReadusóó€court€cited€with€approvalÏòòPeople€v.€Ciprianoóó,€429€N.W.2d€781€(Mich.€1988),€a€case€in€which€the€MichiganÍSupreme€Court€set€forth€the€following€non„exclusive€factors€for€determining€theÏvoluntariness€of€a€confession:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[œT]he›€age€of€the€accused;€his€lack€of€education€or€his€intelligenceÏlevel;€the€extent€of€his€previous€experience€with€the€police;€theÏrepeated€and€prolonged€nature€of€the€questioning;€the€length€ofÏthe€detention€of€the€accused€before€he€gave€the€statement€inÏquestion;€the€lack€of€any€advice€to€the€accused€of€his€constitutionalÏrights;€òòwhether€there€was€an€unnecessary€delay€in€bringing€himÏbefore€a€magistrate€before€he€gave€the€confessionóó;€whether€theÏaccused€was€injured€intoxicated€or€drugged,€or€in€ill€health€whenÏhe€gave€the€statement;€whether€the€accused€was€deprived€of€food,Ïsleep€or€medical€attention;€whether€the€accused€was€physicallyÏabused;€and€whether€the€suspect€was€threatened€with€abuse.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòIdóó.,€429€N.W.2d€at€790€(emphasis€added).€€The€Michigan€court€stressed€that€theÏfocus€on€unnecessary€delay€should€not€be€solely€on€the€length€of€the€delay,€butÏrather€on€the€circumstances€of€the€delay€and€their€effect€on€the€accused.ÌÌà àApplying€those€factors€to€the€circumstances€in€this€case,€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€stated€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àThe€record€of€the€suppression€hearing€reflects€that€the€defendant,Ïas€a€parolee,€had€previous€experience€with€the€police€andÏobviously€previous€experience€with€incarceration.€€He€wasÏadvised€of€his€òòMirandaóó€rights€shortly€after€his€arrest€on€Friday€and,Ïagain,€before€his€questioning€on€Monday.€€He€acknowledged€thatÏhe€understood€his€rights€and€he€did€not€refuse€to€answer€theÍquestions€at€either€session.€€There€was€no€evidence€presentedÏabout€the€defendant's€intelligence€or€mental€and€physicalÏcondition€which€would€raise€a€question€about€the€voluntariness€ofÏthe€statement.€€Likewise,€there€was€no€evidence€indicating€anyÏphysical€or€mental€abuse,€actual€or€threatened,€or€of€anyÏdeprivation€of€necessities.€€To€the€contrary,€the€evidence€showedÏthat€he€was€not€coerced€or€threatened€by€the€police€in€any€way€.€.€.€€Ï[œU]nder›€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€in€this€case,€we€cannotÏconclude€that€the€unnecessary€delay,€even€though€purposeful,Ïrendered€the€defendant's€signed€statement€to€have€been€givenÏinvoluntarily.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àWe€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€Huddleston's€statementÏwas€voluntarily€given€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€and,€therefore,Ïneed€not€€be€suppressed,€despite€the€Rule€5(a)€violation.ÌÌà@ àòòò òIII.€€€FOURTH€AMENDMENT€VIOLATIONóóó óÌà àHaving€concluded€that€suppression€of€the€confession€is€not€required€as€aÏresult€of€the€Rule€5(a)€violation,€we€must€determine€whether€the€FourthÏAmendment€violation€requires€suppression€of€the€confession.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòGerstein€v.€Pughóó,€420€U.S.€103,€95€S.Ct.€854,€43€L.Ed.2d€54€(1975),Ïthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€determined€that€the€Fourth€AmendmentÏmandates€a€prompt€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause€as€a€prerequisiteÏto€any€extended€restraint€of€liberty€after€a€warrantless€arrest.€€òòIdóó.€at€125,€95€S.Ct.Íat€869.€€The€Court€in€òòGersteinóó€did€not€define€"prompt"€nor€specify€a€time€withinÏwhich€the€determination€of€probable€cause€had€to€occur.ÌÌà àRecently,€however,€in€òòMcLaughlinóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€Court€clarified€its€holding€inÏòòGersteinóó,€by€stating€that€"judicial€determinations€of€probable€cause€within€48Ïhours€of€arrest€will,€as€a€general€matter,€comply€with€the€promptnessÏrequirement€of€òòGersteinóó."€€òòIdóó.,€500€U.S.€at€56,€111€S.Ct.€at€1670.€€ÌÌÓÓà8 àThis€is€not€to€say€that€the€probable€cause€determination€in€aÏparticular€case€passes€constitutional€muster€simply€because€it€isÏprovided€within€48€hours.€€Such€a€hearing€may€nonethelessÏviolate€òòGersteinóó€if€the€determination€was€delayed€unreasonably.€ÏExamples€of€unreasonable€delay€are€delays€for€the€purpose€ofÏgathering€additional€evidence€to€justify€the€arrest,€a€delayÏmotivated€by€ill€will€against€the€arrested€individual,€or€delay€forÏdelay's€sake.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓÌà àIf€the€probable€cause€determination€does€not€occur€within€forty„eightÏhours,€"the€burden€shifts€to€the€government€to€demonstrate€the€existence€of€aÏòòbona€fideóó€emergency€or€other€extraordinary€circumstance."€€òòIdóó.,€500€U.S.€at€57,Ï111€S.Ct.€at€1670,€114€L.Ed.2d€at€63.€€€Although€the€Court€acknowledged€thatÏstates€are€free€to€consolidate€probable„cause€hearings€with€other€pretrialÍproceedings,× ƒ1 ××  ×€such€as€bail€determinations,€it€cautioned€that€neither€interveningÏweekends€nor€the€time€required€to€consolidate€pretrial€proceedings€qualifies€asÏan€extraordinary€circumstance.€€òòIdóó.,€500€U.S.€at€57,€111€S.Ct.€at€1670.€€Indeed,Ï"a€jurisdiction€that€chooses€to€offer€combined€proceedings€must€do€so€as€soonÏas€is€reasonably€feasible,€but€in€no€event€later€than€48€hours€after€arrest."€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àHuddleston€argues€that€under€òòMcLaughlinóó,€his€Fourth€AmendmentsÏrights€were€violated€in€this€case€as€a€result€of€the€more€than€seventy„two€hourÏdetention€which€preceded€the€initial€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause.€ÏThe€State€concedes€that€a€Fourth€Amendment€violation€occurred,€but€arguesÏthat€suppression€of€the€confession€is€not€the€required€remedy.ÌÌà àTo€date,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€not€resolved€the€questionÏof€whether€the€exclusionary€rule€applies€in€the€context€of€a€òòMcLaughlinóó€FourthÏAmendment€violation.€€òòPowell€v.€Nevadaóó,€___€U.S.€___,€114€S.Ct.€1280,€128ÏL.Ed.2d€1€(1994).€€Although€noting€two€arguably€analogous€rules€pointing€inÍopposite€directions,× ƒ2 ××  ×€the€òòPowellóó€Court€declined€to€rule€on€the€issue,€statingÏinstead€that€it€"remains€an€unresolved€question."€€òòIdóó.,€___€U.S.€at€___,€114€S.Ct.Ïat€184,€n.€*.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€must€first€determine€whether€the€exclusionary€ruleÏapplies€at€all€in€the€context€of€a€òòMcLaughlinóó€Fourth€Amendment€violation.€€ToÏthat€end,€it€is€essential€that€we€consider€the€history€and€purpose€of€theÏexclusionary€rule€as€it€relates€to€the€Fourth€Amendment.€€The€exclusionary€ruleÏwas€developed€as€a€remedy€for€the€violation€of€Fourth€Amendment€strictures€inÏòòWeeks€v.€United€Statesóó,€232€U.S.€383.€34€S.Ct.€341,€58€L.Ed.€652€(1914),€inÏwhich€the€court€held€that€evidence€seized€in€violation€of€the€Fourth€AmendmentÏmust€be€excluded€from€the€government's€case.€€€Recognizing€that€"[œn]othing›€canÏdestroy€a€government€more€quickly€than€its€failure€to€observe€its€own€laws,€orÏworse,€its€disregard€of€the€charter€of€its€own€existence,"€in€òòMapp€v.€Ohioóó,€367ÏU.S.€643,€81€S.Ct.€1684,€6€L.Ed.2d€1081€(1961),€the€exclusionary€rule€was€alsoÏapplied€to€suppress€evidence€seized€illegally€by€state€governments.€€ÌÌà àFor€a€time€following€the€òòMappóó€decision,€violation€of€a€defendant's€FourthÏAmendment€rights€rendered€inadmissible€all€evidence€obtained€by€means€ofÏthe€violation.€€George€C.€Thomas€III,€òòThe€Poisoned€Fruit€of€Pretrial€Detentionóó,€61ÏN.Y.U.L.€Rev.€413,€430€(1986)€(Hereafter€"61€N.Y.U.L.€Rev.€at€___.").€€ThisÏsimplistic€per€se€rule€of€exclusion€was€short„lived,€however,€perhaps€becauseÏthe€rule,€by€its€nature,€barred€only€probative,€reliable€evidence.€€òòUnited€States€v.ÏLeonóó,€468€U.S.€897,€907,€104€S.Ct.€3405,€3412,€82€L.Ed.2d€677€(1984)Ï(characterizing€evidence€subject€to€suppression€in€Fourth€Amendment€cases€asÏ"inherently€trustworthy€tangible€evidence").€€The€Court€has€since€limited€theÏexclusionary€rule,× ƒ3 ××  ×€and€considers€it€necessary€to€remedy€a€Fourth€AmendmentÏviolation€only€if€its€application€is€likely€to€achieve€substantial€deterrence€ofÏofficial€wrongdoing,€and€the€cost€of€applying€the€rule„„exclusion€of€reliableÍevidence„„does€not€outweigh€the€benefits€achieved€by€its€application.€€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Leonóó,€468€U.S.€at€915„21;€61€N.Y.U.L.€Rev.€at€430€.€ÌÌà àUtilizing€that€cost„benefit€analytical€framework,€the€Court€has€rigidlyÏapplied€the€exclusionary€rule€in€cases€involving€warrantless€arrests€madeÏwithout€probable€cause,œ× ƒ4 ××  ×›€but€has€refused€to€apply€the€rule€to€arrests€or€searchesÏmade€in€good€faith€reliance€on€a€facially€valid€statute€or€a€judicial€officer'sÏdetermination€of€probable€cause€which€are€later€found€to€be€in€error.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àApplying€the€cost„benefit€analysis€discussed€above,€we€conclude€that€theÏexclusionary€rule€should€apply€when€a€police€officer€fails€to€bring€an€arresteeÏbefore€a€magistrate€within€the€time€allowed€by€òòMcLaughlinóó.€€Ignoring€theÏrequirements€of€òòMcLaughlinóó€is€functionally€the€same€as€making€warrantlessÏsearches€or€arrests€when€a€warrant€is€required.€€In€both€situations,€lawÏenforcement€officials€act€without€€necessary€judicial€guidance€or€objective€goodÍfaith.€€The€cost€of€applying€the€exclusionary€sanction€to€a€violation€ofÏòòMcLaughlinóó€is€that€evidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€the€illegal€detention€will€beÏsuppressed.€€The€benefit€is€the€same€as€that€gained€from€the€application€of€theÏexclusionary€rule€to€certain€warrantless€arrests.€€It€will€deter€law€enforcementÏofficials€from€ignoring€the€Fourth€Amendment€mandate€of€a€judicialÏdetermination€of€probable€cause.€€61€N.Y.U.L.€Rev.€at€435.€€Violations€of€ÏòòMcLaughlinóó€can€be€easily€avoided,€and€applying€the€exclusionary€rule€toÏevidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€the€illegal€detention€will€deter€further€violations.Ìà àÌà àHaving€determined€that€the€exclusionary€rule€generally€applies€in€theÏcontext€of€a€òòMcLaughlinóó€violation,€we€must€next€delineate€the€specific€analysisÏthat€governs€its€application€in€individual€cases.€€Several€jurisdictions€employ€theÏtraditional€voluntariness€test€discussed€above€in€conjunction€with€the€Rule€5(a)Ïviolation.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Tuckeróó,€645€A.2d€111,€117„19€(N.J.€1994);€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€œPerez›„œBustamante›óó,€963€F.2d€48,€51„54€(5th€Cir.€1992).€€The€State€inÏthis€case€urges€us€to€adopt€that€analysis€as€well.€€We€decline.ÌÌà àThe€voluntariness€test€is€not€the€proper€vehicle€for€analyzing€whether€a€ÏFourth€Amendment€violation€requires€suppression€of€a€statement.€€TheÏvoluntariness€test€is€designed€to€€protect€the€Fifth€Amendment€right€against€self„incrimination€by€excluding€a€statement€that€is€obtained€as€a€result€of€coercion€byÏlaw€enforcement€officials.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€544„€45.€€ItÏdoes€not€address€the€interests€implicated€by€a€Fourth€Amendment€violation.€ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòPeople€v.€Ciprianoóó,€429€N.W.2d€at€785,€n.€9€(expressly€recognizingÏthat€the€prompt€arraignment€requirement€contained€within€state€procedural€rulesÏis€not€the€same€as€the€Fourth€Amendment€requirement€of€a€prompt€judicialÏdetermination€of€probable€cause€following€a€warrantless€arrest.);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòStateÏv.€Readusóó,€òòsupraóó€(adopting€the€òòCiprianoóó€holding).ÌÌà àIn€contrast,€the€exclusionary€rule€was€designed€to€protect€FourthÏAmendment€guarantees€by€deterring€lawless€searches,€seizures,€and€arrests.€ÏThe€U.S.€Supreme€Court€has€explained€the€interaction€between€€the€Fourth€andÏFifth€Amendments€as€follows.ÌÓÓÌà àà8 àà àAlthough,€almost€90€years€ago,€the€CourtÏobserved€that€the€Fifth€Amendment€is€in€intimateÏrelation€with€the€Fourth,€the€òòMirandaóó€warnings€thusÏfar€have€not€been€regarded€as€a€means€either€ofÏremedying€or€deterring€violations€of€FourthÏAmendment€rights.€€Frequently,€as€here,€rights€underÏthe€two€Amendments€may€appear€to€coalesce€sinceÏthe€unreasonable€searches€and€seizuresÏcondemned€in€the€Fourth€Amendment€are€almostÏalways€made€for€the€purpose€of€compelling€a€man€toÏgive€evidence€against€himself,€which€in€criminalÏcases€is€condemned€in€the€Fifth€Amendment.€€TheÍexclusionary€rule,€however,€when€utilized€toÏeffectuate€the€Fourth€Amendment,€serves€interestsÏand€policies€that€are€distinct€from€those€it€servesÏunder€the€Fifth.€€It€is€directed€at€all€unlawful€searchesÏand€seizures,€and€not€merely€those€that€happened€toÏproduce€incriminating€material€or€testimony€as€fruits.€ÏIn€short,€exclusion€of€a€confession€made€withoutÏòòMirandaóó€warnings€might€be€regarded€as€necessaryÏto€effectuate€the€Fifth€Amendment,€but€would€not€beÏsufficient€fully€to€protect€the€Fourth.€€òòMirandaóóÏwarnings,€and€the€exclusion€of€a€confession€madeÏwithout€them,€do€not€alone,€sufficiently€deter€a€FourthÏAmendment€violation.ÌÌà àà8 àà àThus,€even€if€the€statements€in€this€case€wereÏfound€to€be€voluntary€under€the€Fifth€Amendment,€theÏFourth€Amendment€issue€remains.€€In€order€for€theÏcausal€chain,€between€the€illegal€arrest€and€theÏstatements€made€subsequent€thereto,€to€be€broken,ÏòòWong€Sunóó€requires€not€merely€that€the€statementÏmeet€the€Fifth€Amendment€standard€of€voluntarinessÏbut€that€it€be€sufficiently€an€act€of€free€will€to€purge€theÏprimary€taint.€€òòWong€Sunóó€thus€mandatesÏconsideration€of€a€statement's€admissibility€in€light€ofÏthe€distinct€policies€and€interests€of€the€FourthÏAmendment.ÌÌÓÓòòÌBrown€v.€Illinoisóó,€422€U.S.€590,€601,€95€S.Ct.€2254,€2260„61,€45€L.Ed.2d€416Ï(1975)€(internal€quotations€and€citations€omitted).Ìà àÌà àAccordingly,€we€agree€with€those€jurisdictions€that€have€rejected€theÏvoluntariness€test€and€have€applied€instead€a€"fruit€of€the€poisonous€tree"Íanalysis€in€determining€whether€€or€not€a€statement€obtained€during€an€illegalÏdetention€must€be€suppressed.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€348€N.E.2d€623,€629€(Ind.Ï1976);€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€871€P.2d€35€(Okl.€Crim.€1994);€61€N.Y.U.L.€œRev.›€at€458.€ÏUnder€the€"fruit€of€the€poisonous€tree"€analysis,€the€focus€is€on€whether€theÏevidence€was€obtained€by€exploitation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€illegality.€ÏòòWong€Sun€v.€United€Statesóó,€371€U.S.€471,€488,€83€S.Ct.€407,€417,€9€L.Ed.2dÏ441€(1963).€€As€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€has€recognized,€when€consideringÏwhether€a€statement€obtained€in€violation€of€the€€Fourth€Amendment€must€beÏsuppressed,€the€question€is€"whether€[the€statement]€'was€òòsufficientlyóó€an€act€ofÏfree€will€to€purge€the€primary€taint€of€the€unlawful€invasion.'"€€òòBrown€v.€Illinoisóó,Ï422€U.S.€at€598,€95€S.Ct.€at€2259€(quoting€òòWong€Sun€v.€United€Statesóó,€371€U.S.Ïat€486,€83€S.Ct.€at€416€(emphasis€added).€€€€ÌÌà àAlthough€the€answer€to€that€question€is€dependent€upon€the€particularÏfacts€of€each€case,€the€Court€suggested€four€factors€to€aid€the€determination:€(1)Ïthe€presence€or€absence€of€òòMirandaóó€warnings;€(2)€the€temporal€proximity€of€theÏarrest€and€the€confession;€(3)€the€presence€of€intervening€circumstances;€andÏfinally,€of€particular€significance,€(4)€the€purpose€and€flagrancy€of€the€officialÏmisconduct.€€The€burden€of€proving,€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€theÏadmissibility€of€the€challenged€evidence€rests€on€the€prosecution.€€òòBrown€v.ÍIllinoisóó,€422€U.S.€at€603„04,€95€S.Ct.€at€2261„62;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€348ÏN.E.2d€at€628.€€€ÌÌà àUnlike€illegal€arrest€cases,€the€Fourth€Amendment€violation€inÏòòMcLaughlinóó€cases€is€the€unreasonable€detention€of€an€arrestee€without€aÏjudicial€determination€of€probable€cause.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Initially,€detention€is€not€illegal,€butÏlater€ripens€into€a€constitutional€violation.€€Although€some€modification€of€theÏprecise€application€of€the€factors€is€necessary€to€accommodate€the€differencesÏbetween€an€illegal€arrest€and€an€illegal€detention,€€we€conclude€that€the€above„cited€factors,€as€explained€in€greater€detail€below,€are€relevant€and€appropriateÏin€determining€whether€suppression€of€evidence€is€appropriate€in€illegalÏdetention€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€348€N.E.2d€at€629;€61€N.Y.U.L.€Rev.€atÏ458„59.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€was€held€for€more€than€seventy„two€hoursÏwithout€a€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause,€thus€the€burden€shifted€toÏthe€State€"to€demonstrate€the€existence€of€a€òòbona€fideóó€emergency€or€otherÏextraordinary€circumstance."€The€State€offered€no€evidence€to€meet€that€burden.€ÍThus€a€Fourth€Amendment€violation€occurred.€€Suppression€of€a€statementÏobtained€as€a€result€of€that€violation€is€required€unless€the€confession€isÏ"sufficiently€an€act€of€free€will€to€purge€the€primary€taint€of€the€illegal€arrest."€ÏUtilizing€the€four€factors€identified€above,€we€conclude€that€suppression€isÏrequired€in€this€case.ÌÌà àHuddleston€was€given€òòMirandaóó€warnings€prior€to€giving€the€statement€toÏpolice.€€Although€that€factor€is€not€determinative,€it€indicates€that€the€defendantÏwas€aware€of€his€Fifth€Amendment€rights€against€self„incrimination€which€is€aÏthreshold€factor€weighing,€to€some€extent,€in€favor€of€attenuation.Ì€Ìà àSecond,€we€consider€the€temporal€proximity€of€the€arrest€and€theÏconfession.€€In€the€context€of€a€òòMcLaughlinóó€violation,€the€inquiry€focuses€on€theÏpoint€at€which€the€statement€was€given€during€the€òòillegalóó€detention.€€Obviously,€ifÏthe€statement€was€given€prior€to€the€time€the€detention€ripened€into€aÏconstitutional€violation,€it€is€not€the€product€of€the€illegality€and€should€not€beÏsuppressed.€€Many€commentators€have€argued€convincingly€that€"illegalÏcustody€becomes€more€oppressive€as€it€continues€uninterrupted."€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€1ÏW.€LaFave€&€J.€Israel,€òòCriminal€Procedureóó,€ðð€9.4(a),€at€744€(1984).€€Thus,€whenÏthe€detention€becomes€unlawful€under€òòMcLaughlinóó,€the€passage€of€time€actuallyÍmakes€the€violation€worse.€€Although€the€taint€of€an€unlawful€arrest€may€tend€toÏdissipate€with€time,€it€is€not€the€arrest€that€is€unlawful€in€a€òòMcLaughlinóó€violation,Ïbut€the€detention€itself.€€Once€the€detention€becomes€unlawful,€the€pressure€toÏconfess€likely€increases€with€each€moment€of€continuing€illegal€detention.€ÏWhere,€as€here,€the€defendant€did€not€confess€until€he€had€been€detained€byÏthe€authorities€for€approximately€seventy„two€hours,€the€temporal€proximityÏfactor€weighs€against€a€finding€of€attenuation€and€in€favor€of€suppression.€€òòSeeóóÏòòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€348€N.E.2d€at€630;€61€N.Y.U.L.€Rev.€at€458„59.ÌÌà àNext,€we€consider€whether€the€presence€of€intervening€circumstancesÏpurged€the€taint€of€the€illegal€detention.€€The€leading€intervening€circumstancesÏcase€in€the€context€of€an€illegal€arrest€is€òòWong€Sunóó.€€There,€the€defendant€wasÏfree€on€bail€but€voluntarily€returned€to€the€police€station€to€make€a€statement.€ÏObviously,€that€intervening€circumstance€purged€the€taint€of€the€initial€illegality.€ÏContinuing€custody€is€inherent€to€every€òòMcLaughlinóó€violation;€therefore,€theÏintervening€circumstance€present€in€òòWongóó€òòSunóó€will€never€be€present€in€anÏillegal€detention€case.€€One€example€of€an€intervening€circumstance€that€couldÏpurge€the€taint€of€an€illegal€detention,€however,€is€the€arrestee's€consultationÏwith€an€attorney,€relative,€friend,€or€priest€prior€to€the€time€a€statement€is€given.€ÍIn€this€case,€there€is€no€evidence€of€an€intervening€circumstance.€€Thus,€thisÏfactor€weighs€against€a€finding€of€attenuation€and€in€favor€of€suppression.ÌÌà àFinally,€we€consider€whether€the€police€illegality,€in€this€case€unlawfulÏdetention,€was€purposeful.€€This€factor€is€particularly€appropriate€in€the€contextÏof€evaluating€whether€evidence€obtained€in€violation€of€the€Fourth€AmendmentÏshould€be€suppressed,€as€the€primary€purpose€of€the€Fourth€AmendmentÏexclusionary€rule€is€to€deter€official€misconduct.€€In€this€case,€the€police€officerÏtestified€that€Huddleston€was€detained€€so€that€police€could€"continue€theÏinvestigation€and€develop€additional€evidence."€€Obviously,€the€detention€wasÏintentional€and€was€not€the€product€of€simple€inadvertence€or€administrativeÏoversight.€€Inadvertence€or€administrative€oversight€are€more€akin€to€the€òòLeonóóÏanalysis€of€objective€good€faith€and€would€weigh€less€in€favor€of€suppression€inÏthe€analysis€of€this€Fourth€Amendment€violation.€€Here,€however,€the€detentionÏwas€purposeful.ÌÌà àMoreover,€in€òòMcLaughlinóó,€the€Court€specifically€characterized€asÏunreasonable,€delay€"for€the€purpose€of€gathering€additional€evidence€to€justifyÏthe€arrest.€.€.€."€€òòIdóó.,€500€U.S.€at€56,€111.Ct.€at€1670.€€Certainly,€thatÏcharacterization€is€in€keeping€with€the€underlying€principles€of€the€FourthÍAmendment€which€prohibits€arrests€except€upon€probable€cause.€€Here,€OfficerÏBaker€admitted€that€he€did€not€believe€he€had€sufficient€evidence€withoutÏadditional€investigation€to€establish€probable€cause€to€a€judicial€officer€andÏsecure€a€warrant€for€Huddleston's€arrest.€€Although€Officer€Baker's€subjectiveÏbelief€that€he€did€not€have€enough€evidence€to€obtain€a€warrant€is€irrelevant€toÏwhether€or€not€probable€cause€actually€existed,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€œDuer›óó,€616€S.W.2dÏ614,€616€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981),€his€belief€is€relevant€to€determine€theÏflagrancy€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€violation.€€Here,€Officer€Baker€proceeded€toÏmake€a€warrantless€arrest€though€he€did€not€believe€he€had€probable€cause€toÏdo€so.€€Despite€his€belief€that€he€had€already€violated€the€Fourth€AmendmentÏprobable€cause€requirement,€he€intentionally€compounded€that€problem€byÏdetaining€Huddleston€in€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment's€requirement€of€aÏprompt€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause.€€Such€a€flagrant€disregard€ofÏconstitutional€mandates€must€not€be€countenanced€by€the€courts.€ÏConsideration€of€this€factor,€therefore,€weighs€heavily€in€favor€of€suppression.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€after€due€consideration€of€the€factors€discussed€above,ÏHuddleston's€confession,€obtained€during€an€illegal€detention€in€violation€of€theÏFourth€Amendment,€should€have€been€suppressed.€ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àFor€the€reasons€discussed€above,€the€defendant's€constitutional€right€toÏcounsel€was€not€violated€in€this€case.€€However,€we€have€determined€that€Ìthe€defendant's€rights€under€both€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€5(a)€and€the€FourthÏAmendment€to€the€federal€constitution€were€violated€by€the€State's€failure€toÏseek€a€prompt€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause.€€The€violation€of€Tenn.ÏR.€Crim.€P.€5(a)€does€not€require€that€the€confession€be€suppressed€since€it€wasÏvoluntarily€given€under€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€€Suppression€of€theÏconfession€is€required,€however,€in€this€case,€as€a€result€of€the€FourthÏAmendment€violation.€€Accordingly,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals'€judgment€isÏreversed€and€the€cause€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial€in€which€theÏdefendant's€confession€will€not€be€admissible.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€toÏthe€State€of€Tennessee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ìà à€€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€JusticeÌÌò òÌCONCUR:ó óÌÌBirch,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€J.ÌReid€and€White,€JJ.€„€See€Separate€Concurring€OpinionÌ