State v. Eserjose, 259 P.3d 172

The Latte On Your Way coffee shop was burglarized in the early morning hours of August 29, 2008, with about $400 taken from a freezer can; deputy sheriffs responded, found entry signs but no further disturbance, and proceeded to investigate based on information from a 911 caller.
An informant, James Kordell, told Deputy Wright that his former roommate Joseph Paragone and James Eserjose were responsible and provided Eserjose’s parents’ Illahee address.
Deputies obtained consent to enter the home but then entered upstairs hallway to arrest Paragone and Eserjose, after which Paragone was arrested in the hallway and Eserjose outside his bedroom.
Eserjose was read Miranda rights at the scene and then, at the sheriff’s office, signed a Miranda waiver and confessed after learning Paragone had confessed.
The trial court suppressed neither the arrest nor the confession, relying instead on New York v. Harris to admit the confession as admissible under the Fourth Amendment; the State sought direct review.
The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed, holding Harris incompatible with Article I, §7, but applying attenuation to conclude Eserjose’s confession was not tainted by the illegal arrest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Harris is compatible with Article I, §7.	Eserjose argues Harris violates Washington constitution protections.	State argues Harris is compatible or not applicable under §7.	Harris incompatible with §7; attenuation applies here.
Is the confession admissible under Article I, §7 despite unlawful arrest?	Eserjose contends the arrest tainted the confession.	State contends the confession is sufficiently attenuated from the illegality.	Confession admissible under §7; not attributable to the illegal arrest.
Does the Brown attenuation framework apply under Washington law?	Brown factors determine taint in the causal chain.	Brown factors may be inapplicable under Washington law.	Brown factors are applied to assess attenuation under §7.
Was the illegality of custody dispositive of the confession’s admissibility?	Illegal arrest necessarily taints custody and confession.	Custody legality not determinative; attenuation governs admissibility.	Custody legality not dispositive; attenuation analysis governs.
Should the attenuation doctrine be rejected to preserve the heightened protections of §7?	Dissent argues against attenuation to maintain strong privacy protections.	Majority defends attenuation as compatible with §7.	Majority upholds attenuation as compatible with §7; dissenting view rejected.

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (prohibits warrantless entry to arrest in home absent exigent circumstances)
New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990) (addressed admissibility of station-house statements after unlawful entry when probable cause exists)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (three Brown factors for attenuation of taint beyond Miranda warnings)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (attenuation framework for taint analysis; primary illegality must taint the evidence)
Gaines v. State, 154 Wash.2d 711 (2005) (independent-source exclusionary rule under Washington Constitution)
Afana v. State, 169 Wash.2d 169 (2010) (rejects good-faith/inevitable-discovery under §7; emphasizes privacy protections)
Winterstein v. State, 167 Wash.2d 620 (2009) (rejects broad federal doctrines (inevitable discovery) under §7)
State v. Vangen, 72 Wash.2d 548 (1967) (early attenuation considerations in Washington)
State v. Armenta, 134 Wash.2d 1 (1997) (Brown factors applied to determine taint under §7)
State v. Coates, 107 Wash.2d 882 (1987) (independent source doctrine under §7)
State v. Ladson, 138 Wash.2d 343 (1999) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine; tailoring to Washington)