McDaniel v. Polley
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2368
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Police investigating DeAngular Moore’s murder learned from an officer (Blackman) of a man seen pulling a garbage can into the school lot; Moore was later identified as living with Marshall McDaniel.
- Officers went to McDaniel’s home without a warrant; McDaniel consented to entry, a search, and to go to the station; he was briefly handcuffed, told he was not under arrest, and handcuffs were removed within minutes.
- While officers were transporting McDaniel, they were told Officer Blackman had identified McDaniel in a photo array; at the station McDaniel was placed in custody, Mirandized, interrogated multiple times over 24+ hours, and signed a written confession.
- At trial McDaniel moved to suppress the confession as fruit of an unlawful arrest; the trial court found an arrest at the house but imputed Blackman’s identification to create probable cause and admitted the confession; McDaniel was convicted.
- Appellate counsel raised only a due-process claim (polygraph comment) and did not challenge the arrest or confession; McDaniel later sought postconviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise the Fourth Amendment suppression claim.
- State courts denied relief; the federal district court found the initial arrest lacked probable cause but held McDaniel could not show Strickland prejudice because the confession would have been admissible under the attenuation doctrine; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was appellate counsel ineffective for not arguing the arrest was unlawful and confession fruit of that arrest? | McDaniel: appellate counsel should have argued the confession was inadmissible as fruit of an unlawful arrest, which would have led to reversal. | State: the failure was not prejudicial because officers had probable cause at the time of arrest and/or the confession was attenuated from any illegality. | Counsel not ineffective — no Strickland prejudice because confession admissible under attenuation even assuming unlawful arrest. |
| Did Officer Blackman’s field description and later photo-ID supply probable cause at the time of arrest? | McDaniel: the initial description of a generic man did not supply individualized probable cause. | State: proximity of address, McDaniel’s knowledge of reason for visit, nervousness, and Blackman’s ID supported probable cause. | Court: description alone insufficient; Blackman’s later photo-ID (independent) supplied probable cause before interrogation. |
| If arrest unlawful, should confession be suppressed as fruit of the arrest? | McDaniel: confession was product of the illegal arrest and 24-hour custody, so tainted. | State: Miranda warnings, intervening independent photo-ID, and lack of flagrant misconduct attenuated the taint. | Court: confession was attenuated — Miranda warnings and independent eyewitness ID (and nonflagrant police conduct) weigh for admissibility. |
| Was police conduct sufficiently purposeful/flagrant to require exclusion? | McDaniel: the visit to McDaniel’s home was an ‘‘expedition for evidence’’ and thus purposeful. | State: officers were conducting a bona fide investigation, acted (at most) negligently, did not intend an arrest. | Court: conduct was not purposeful or flagrant; exclusion would not further deterrence — factor favors admissibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (attenuation/taint analysis for confessions)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree)
- Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (attenuation factors; good-faith negligence vs. purposeful misconduct)
- Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687 (post-arrest warrant not necessarily an intervening event if derived from the illegal arrest)
- Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (deterring arrests used as investigatory methods)
- United States v. Reed, 349 F.3d 457 (7th Cir.) (application of attenuation factors)
- Hart v. Mannina, 798 F.3d 578 (7th Cir.) (single eyewitness ID can establish probable cause)