Facts: Petitioner James Eserjose was convicted of second degree burglary in the Superior Court for Kitsap County after confessing to police officers following his arrest.  Eserjose subsequently appealed his conviction directly to the Supreme Court of Washington, asserting that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the confession insofar as the arrest that preceded it was unlawful given that it was effected by a warrantless and non-consensual entry into his home not necessitated by exigent circumstances.

Question(s): Was Eserjose’s confession admissible despite the unlawfulness of the arrest that preceded it?

Conclusion: Justice Alexander’s opinion for the Court affirmed Eserjose’s conviction, concluding that although the rule established by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York v. Harris , which held that the 4^th Amendment to the United States Constitution’s exclusionary rule does not bar the admission of statements made by a suspect following an unlawful arrest when probable cause exists to arrest the suspect, is incompatible with Article I §7 of the Washington State Constitution, Eserjose’s confession was nonetheless admissible as it was not attributable to the unlawful arrest.

Docket No. 82491-6 (from Kitsap Case No. 08-1-00972-4)

Petitioner: James Eserjose

(Counsel: Thomas E. Weaver, Jr.)

Respondent: State of Washington

(Counsel: Kevin M. Anderson and Jeremy Aaron Morris)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, June 30th, 2011

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)

Vote: 5-4

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-2011)

Madsen
(Concurs)

Johnson
(Dissent)

Alexander
(Majority)

Sanders

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens