Is Information Extraction During Illegal Police Custody Admissible ?
In Wong Sun v. United, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963), two defendants, Toy and Wong Sun, were challenging the admission of evidence against them. See id. at 477.
There, the officers raided Toy's laundromat, which also served as his home, and arrested him without probable cause. See Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 473-74.
While unlawfully in custody, Toy gave the officers information about Yee, an individual who was in possession of a large amount of heroin. See id. at 474.
Based on Toy's statements, the officers arrested Yee and recovered narcotics from him. See id. at 475.
Yee gave officers information which led to the arrest of Wong Sun. See id.
The court found that the use of the narcotics recovered from Yee against Toy was unconstitutional since Toy's statement, taken in violation of the Constitution, led the officers to Yee and the narcotics. See Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 477-78.
Wong Sun made the same challenge. See id. at 491.
In denying his claims to suppress the evidence, the Court stated, "The seizure of heroin invaded no right of privacy or person or premises which allow Wong Sun to object to its use at trial." Id. at 492.
Thus, because Wong Sun lacked standing to complain about the violation of Toy's rights, the Court held he could not use those grounds to complain about the use of the narcotics against him. See id.