Defendant wasn’t entitled to suppress the flamingos as evidence

February 17, 2016

  • 110 Criminal Law
  • 110XVII Evidence
  • 110XVII(I) Competency in General
  • 110k392.1 Wrongfully Obtained Evidence
  • 110k392.39 Extent of Exclusion;  “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”
  • 110k392.39(8) Exceptions
  • 110k392.39(11) Causal nexus;  independent discovery or basis or source

02-17-16.jpgFact that undercover agents of Fish and Wildlife Service delayed execution of warrant to arrest defendant for offering for sale and selling two American flamingos in order to complete the purchase and strengthen the case against defendant did not entitle defendant to a motion to suppress the flamingos as evidence, as the evidence obtained by such delay could have been lawfully secured without the arrest warrant.

U.S. v. Drake, 655 F.2d 1025 (C.A. 10 (Colo.), 1981)