Kaupp v. Texas
538 U.S. 626, 155 L. Ed. 2d 814, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 3670 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The involuntary removal of a suspect from their home to a police station for custodial interrogation is a seizure tantamount to an arrest and must be supported by probable cause. A confession obtained by exploiting such an illegal arrest is inadmissible unless the State demonstrates it was a sufficient act of free will to purge the primary taint of the unlawful conduct.
Facts:
- After a 14-year-old girl disappeared, her 19-year-old half-brother confessed to her murder.
- The brother implicated his 17-year-old friend, Robert Kaupp, in the crime.
- Police attempted but failed to obtain a warrant to question Kaupp.
- At approximately 3 a.m., several police officers went to Kaupp's home.
- Officers woke Kaupp, told him 'we need to go and talk,' to which Kaupp responded, 'Okay.'
- The officers then handcuffed Kaupp and led him from his house, shoeless and dressed only in boxer shorts and a T-shirt, to a patrol car.
- Police transported Kaupp first to the crime scene and then to the sheriff's headquarters for questioning.
- After approximately 10-15 minutes of interrogation, upon being told of his brother's confession, Kaupp admitted to having some part in the crime.
Procedural Posture:
- In the state trial court, Kaupp moved to suppress his confession as the fruit of an illegal arrest.
- The trial court denied the motion.
- Kaupp was convicted of murder and sentenced to 55 years' imprisonment.
- Kaupp, as appellant, appealed to the State Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction, holding that no arrest had occurred before the confession.
- Kaupp, as petitioner, sought discretionary review from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, which was denied.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the removal of a suspect from his home by police for questioning, under circumstances where a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, constitute an arrest requiring probable cause under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The involuntary removal of a suspect from his home to a police station for investigative purposes is sufficiently like an arrest to invoke the traditional rule that arrests may be made only on probable cause. The test for a seizure is whether, taking into account all circumstances, the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business. Here, being awakened at 3 a.m. by multiple officers, told 'we need to go and talk,' and then taken out in handcuffs and underwear clearly constitutes an arrest. Kaupp's response of 'Okay' was not consent but 'a mere submission to a claim of lawful authority.' The State conceded it lacked probable cause, making the arrest illegal. Therefore, the subsequent confession must be suppressed as the fruit of the illegal arrest unless the State can prove it was purged of the primary taint, which it failed to do.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures is determined by the objective reality of the police encounter, not by police labels or a suspect's failure to resist. It clarifies that a seizure 'tantamount to arrest' occurs when a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the encounter, thus triggering the probable cause requirement. The decision serves as a significant check on police power, preventing officers from circumventing warrant and probable cause requirements by transporting suspects for 'voluntary' questioning under coercive circumstances. It solidifies the application of the 'totality of the circumstances' test for determining when a seizure has occurred.
Unlock the full brief for Kaupp v. Texas