A young man robbed a woman in a womens restroom at the Washington National Monument. During the robbery, the woman had a good opportunity to see the young man. The woman immediately reported the robbery and described the young man who robbed her. Three days later, a young man (Crain) was improperly and illegally detained. Photographs were taken of the young man and a photographic display (array) was shown to the woman. She immediately identified Crain as the man who robbed her at gunpoint. In a lineup, the woman again identified Crain as the robber. At Crains trial for armed robbery, the woman appeared as a witness and identified the defendant as the robber. Crain was convicted, and he appealed arguing that the in-court-identification was the fruit of the poisonous tree and should not be used as evidence. California police officers improperly arrested Watson in his apartment. Before taking Watson to the police station, arrangements had to be made for the care of Watsons cat and dog. In an attempt to provide for the care of these animals, the officers went to the apartment of a neighbor (Mrs. Lopez) to inquire if she would take care of the animals. Mrs. Lopez told the officers that they should investigate Watson for a recent bank robbery in which the robber had presented his demand in a note threatening that he had nitroglycerin on his person. Mrs. Lopez stated that she was in Watsons apartment on the morning of the robbery and he was writing a note and had asked her how to spell . The officers had not suspected Watson of the robbery, but the investigation that followed produced sufficient evidence to convict Watson of the bank robbery. An appeal was taken from the conviction arguing, among other issues, that the defense position of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine required suppression of the evidence that was ultimately used to convict Watson. The defendant, who was charged with a robbery and murder, was placed in a jail cell with a police informant. The informant overheard the defendant make incriminating statements that he passed on to the police. Police were investigating a shooting death outside a cafe in Dallas, Texas. Defendant Ortez had left the scene of the shooting and had returned to his boardinghouse to sleep. At about 4 a.m. four police officers arrived at the petitioners boardinghouse, were admitted by an unidentified woman, and were told that the petitioner was asleep in the bedroom. All four officers entered the bedroom and began to question the petitioner. From the moment he gave his name, according to the testimony of one of the officers, the petitioner was not free to go where he pleased but was under arrest. The officers asked him if he had been to the El Farleto restaurant that night; when he answered yes, he was asked if he owned a pistol. The petitioner admitted to owning one. After being asked a second time where the pistol was located, he admitted that it was in the washing machine in a backroom of the boardinghouse. Ballistics tests indicated that the gun found in the washing machine was the gun that fired the fatal shot.
