## Facts

- Police responded to a suspected residential burglary after a neighbor’s report.
- An officer saw two men run from the residence and briefly observed one suspect’s face during the flight.
- About 15 minutes later, officers believed a suspect had entered a nearby house; without a warrant and without valid consent, they forced entry into that house, which was Tan Le’s residence, and arrested him.
- The trial court ruled the warrantless entry and arrest were unconstitutional and suppressed physical evidence found inside the home.
- Police summoned the observing officer to Le’s residence, where Le was handcuffed in custody, and she identified him as one of the fleeing men; the identification occurred about three hours after the initial sighting and after Le had been singled out by police.
- Le was charged with residential burglary and theft of a firearm; the jury acquitted on the firearm charge but convicted on burglary.
- Le appealed, arguing the postarrest identification should have been excluded as fruit of the unlawful entry and arrest.

## Issues

1. Whether a postarrest identification arranged after an illegal warrantless home entry and arrest must be suppressed as derivative evidence under the exclusionary rule and the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine.
2. Whether the State proved the identification was admissible because it had an independent source or because the taint of the illegality was sufficiently attenuated.
3. Whether admission of the postarrest identification, if erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Washington Court of Appeals (Division One) held the postarrest identification was the fruit of an illegal arrest and should have been suppressed.
- The court rejected independent-source and attenuation arguments because the identification was arranged by exploitation of the illegal custody and the State did not show an untainted origin by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court reversed the residential burglary conviction and remanded for further proceedings, concluding the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- The exclusionary rule requires suppression of evidence obtained through constitutional violations and of derivative evidence obtained by exploitation of the primary illegality.
- Under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, derivative evidence is inadmissible unless an exception applies, including independent source, attenuation, or inevitable discovery.
- When an identification follows an illegal arrest, the State bears the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the identification rests on an independent origin untainted by the illegality.
- A warrantless home entry to effect an arrest is unconstitutional absent a warrant, valid consent, or exigent circumstances.
- An error admitting unlawfully derived identification evidence requires reversal unless the State proves the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

Because the police arranged the show-up identification only after illegally entering Le’s home and arresting him, and the State failed to show a genuinely independent source or sufficient attenuation, the identification was inadmissible; its admission was prejudicial, requiring reversal of Le’s burglary conviction and remand.


State v. Le, 103 Wash. App. 354, 12 P.3d 653 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000)