495 U.S. 14 (1990)
On January 11, 1984, New York City police found the body of Ms. Thelma Staton murdered in her apartment. Facts gave the officers probable cause to believe that respondent Bernard Harris had killed her.1
On January 16, 1984, three police officers went to Harris' apartment to take him into custody without first obtaining an arrest warrant.2 When the police arrived, they knocked on the door while displaying their guns and badges, and Harris let them enter the apartment.3
Once inside, the officers read Harris his Miranda rights under Miranda v. Arizona, which he acknowledged understanding, and he agreed to answer their questions, reportedly admitting that he had killed Ms. Staton.4 Harris was then arrested and taken to the station house, where he was again informed of his Miranda rights and signed a written inculpatory statement.5 The police subsequently read Harris the Miranda warnings a third time and videotaped an incriminating interview between Harris and a district attorney, even though Harris had indicated that he wanted to end the interrogation.6
The trial court suppressed Harris' first and third statements, rulings the State does not challenge, but concluded that the second statement made at the station house was admissible.7 Following a bench trial, Harris was convicted of second-degree murder, and the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.8 A divided New York Court of Appeals reversed, 72 N. Y. 2d 614, 532 N. E. 2d 1229 (1988).9
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the admissibility of the station house statement. 490 U. S. 1018 (1989).10
Whether the station house statement should have been suppressed because the police, by entering Harris' home without a warrant and without his consent, violated Payton v. New York?11
Where the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the State's use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton v. New York.12
Yes. The officers had probable cause to arrest Harris for the crime based on the facts from the murder investigation.13 Although the warrantless entry into the home violated Payton because Harris did not consent, the station house statement was not the fruit of that illegality.14 Harris was in legal custody due to probable cause when he made the statement after proper Miranda warnings.15 The purpose of the Payton rule to protect the physical integrity of the home was already served by suppressing any evidence obtained inside the residence.16
The legal issue is the same as if the police had arrested Harris on his doorstep, illegally entered to search, and later questioned him at the station house.17 Suppressing the station house statement would not advance the interests protected by Payton.18 The incremental deterrent effect on police would be minimal because officers with probable cause need not violate Payton to interrogate a suspect.19
The station house statement was admissible and should not have been suppressed.20
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Marshall dissented on the ground that the majority adopted an unprecedented per se rule that a Payton violation necessarily ends once the suspect is removed from the home, rendering attenuation analysis under Brown v. Illinois unnecessary.21 He argued that the Brown factors must still be applied because the effects of a warrantless home arrest do not vanish at the doorstep.22 The violation here was flagrant, as the officers knew a warrant was required, waited five days, and followed a departmental policy of avoiding warrants to obtain confessions before counsel attached under New York law.23
With only about an hour between the arrest and the statement, and with no meaningful intervening circumstances beyond Miranda warnings, the statement remained the product of the illegal entry.24 It should have been suppressed to deter deliberate Fourth Amendment violations.25