United States v. Brendan Allen Shaw
464 F.3d. 615 (2006)
Rule of Law:
An uncorroborated hearsay statement of a three-year-old child, as reported by the child's mother, is insufficient on its own to establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest under the Fourth Amendment. A confession obtained following such an illegal arrest is inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree unless the government can prove it was sufficiently attenuated from the illegal seizure.
Facts:
- Brendan Shaw, 18, was a live-in babysitter for his cousin, Aaron and Angie Shaw, and their three young sons.
- On the evening of June 21, 2004, Angie Shaw brought her three-year-old son to an army hospital.
- Angie Shaw reported to medical staff that her son claimed Shaw had "touched his pee-pee" and that Shaw's "pee-pee had touched his butt."
- A doctor examined the child and found no physical evidence of trauma or sexual penetration.
- Military Police were notified of the allegation and spoke with Angie Shaw and a nurse, but did not interview the three-year-old child.
- After midnight, MP Investigator Edgar Ford was directed to go to the family's residence to retrieve Shaw.
- Ford found Shaw outside, told him he was needed for questioning, frisked him, handcuffed him, and placed him in the back of an unmarked police car.
- Ford transported Shaw to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) office for interrogation without allowing Shaw to put on shoes.
Procedural Posture:
- Brendan Allen Shaw was charged in a ten-count federal indictment with child sexual abuse.
- Shaw filed a motion to suppress three written statements in the district court, arguing they were obtained in violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress, finding that although Shaw was seized, the military police had probable cause to arrest him.
- Following the denial, Shaw entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving his right to appeal the district court's ruling on the suppression motion.
- Shaw (Appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, with the United States as Appellee.
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 a warrantless arrest based solely on the uncorroborated hearsay statement of a three-year-old child, as reported by the child's mother, violate the Fourth Amendment, and if so, must subsequent confessions be suppressed as fruit of that illegal arrest?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiseman, D.J.
Yes, the arrest violated the Fourth Amendment and the subsequent confessions must be suppressed. An arrest occurs when a reasonable person in the suspect's position would not feel free to leave, which was the case when Shaw was frisked, handcuffed, and transported to a police station. This arrest was not supported by probable cause because it was based exclusively on the uncorroborated hearsay of a three-year-old reported by his mother, with no physical evidence and no police interview of the child. Because the arrest was illegal, the resulting confessions are presumptively inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. The government failed to prove the confessions were purged of the primary taint, as the prolonged detention was exploitative, there were no significant intervening circumstances, and the police misconduct was flagrant because the arrest was purely investigatory in nature, conducted in the hope that a confession might turn up.
Dissenting - Sutton, J.
No, the arrest was supported by probable cause and the confessions should be admissible. Probable cause requires only a fair probability, not certainty, and should be viewed under the totality of the circumstances. The police reasonably relied on the statement of an eyewitness—the child—as relayed by his mother, who knew both the victim and the accused. Shaw had the opportunity to commit the crime, and the child's description of the events was consistent with a child's understanding. The absence of physical evidence is not dispositive in such cases. The majority's decision improperly increases the Fourth Amendment protections for child sexual abuse suspects by requiring corroboration for eyewitness testimony, a standard not applied to other serious crimes.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary threshold for probable cause in cases involving very young child victims, establishing that a single, uncorroborated hearsay report is insufficient for a warrantless arrest. It reinforces the principle that Fourth Amendment protections are not diminished by the heinous nature of the alleged crime. The ruling also serves as a strong modern application of the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine, demonstrating that Miranda warnings and the passage of time do not automatically cure the taint of an illegal arrest, especially when the arrest's purpose was purely investigatory.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Brendan Allen Shaw (2006)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"