author: Justice Marshall Justice Powell,

text:
    FOREMOST INSURANCE CO. et al. v. RICHARDSON et al.
    No. 80-2134.
    Argued January 12, 1982
    Decided June 23, 1982
    Marshall, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Brennan, White, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., joined. Powell, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Burger, C. J., and Rehnquist and O’Con-nor, JJ., joined, post, p. 677.

      Arthur H. Andrews argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners.

      Dorsey C. Martin III argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
   Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue presented in this case is whether the collision of two pleasure boats on navigable waters falls within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts. See 28 U. S. C. § 1333. We granted certiorari to resolve the confusion in the lower courts respecting the impact of Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U. S. 249 (1972), on traditional rules for determining federal admiralty jurisdiction. 454 U. S. 813 (1981). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an accident between two vessels in navigable waters bears a sufficient relationship to traditional maritime activity to fall within federal admiralty jurisdiction. We affirm.

I

Two pleasure boats collided on the Amite River in Louisiana, resulting in the death of Clyde Richardson. The wife and children of the decedent brought this action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, alleging, inter alia, that petitioner Shirley Eliser had negligently operated the boat that collided with the vessel occupied by the decedent. Respondents also named petitioner Foremost Insurance Co., Eliser’s insurer, as a defendant. Jurisdiction was claimed under 28 U. S. C. § 1333(1), which gives federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction over “[a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.” Petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint did not state a cause of action within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction of the District Court.

In ruling on petitioners’ motion, the District Court found the following facts to be undisputed:

“(i) One boat was used for pleasure boating, such as boat riding and water skiing, and at the time of the accident the boat was actually pulling a skier on a zip sled;
“(2) The other boat was used exclusively for pleasure fishing and was described as a bass boat;
“(3) Neither boat had ever been used in any ‘commercial maritime activity’ before the accident;
“(4) At the time of the accident neither boat was involved in any ‘commercial maritime activity’ of any sort;
“(5) Neither of the two drivers of the boat were being paid to operate the boat nor was this activity in any way a part of their regular type of employment;
“(6) None of the passengers on either boat were engaged in any kind of ‘traditional maritime activity’ either before or at the time of the accident;
“(7) Neither of the boats involved were under hire in any traditional maritime form;
“(8) There is no evidence to indicate that any ‘commercial activity’, even in the broadest admiralty sense, had ever been previously engaged in by either of the boats in question, and in fact the two boats would have to be classified as ‘purely pleasure craft’, not in any way ‘involved in commerce’, and,
“(9) There was no other instrumentality involved in this accident that had even a minor relationship to ‘admiralty’ or ‘commerce’, i. e. a buoy, barge, oil drilling apparatus, etc.” 470 F. Supp. 699, 700 (1979).

After reviewing decisions of this Court and the Fifth Circuit, as well as relevant commentary, the District Court found that there must be some relationship with traditional maritime activity for an injury sustained on navigable water to fall within federal admiralty jurisdiction. The District Court held that commercial maritime activity is necessary to satisfy this relationship, and granted petitioners’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the collision of these two pleasure boats did not involve any commercial activity.

The Court of Appeals reversed. 641 F. 2d 314 (1981). The Court of Appeals agreed that Executive Jet, supra, and relevant Fifth Circuit decisions establish that “admiralty jurisdiction requires more than the occurrence of the tort on navigable waters — that additionally there must be a significant relationship between the wrong and traditional maritime activity.” 641 F. 2d, at 315. It disagreed with the District Court, however, on the application of this principle to the undisputed facts of this case. Relying on the fact that the “Rules of the Road” govern all boats on navigable waters, and on the uncertainty that would accompany a finding of no admiralty jurisdiction in this case, the Court of Appeals held that “two boats, regardless of their intended use, purpose, size, and activity, are engaged in traditional maritime activity when a collision between them occurs on navigable waters.” Id., at 316.

II

Prior to our opinion in Executive Jet, there, was little question that a complaint such as the one filed here stated a cause of action within federal admiralty jurisdiction. Indeed, the Executive Jet Court begins its opinion by observing that, under the traditional rule of admiralty jurisdiction, “[i]f the wrong occurred on navigable waters, the action is within admiralty jurisdiction.” 409 U. S., at 253 (citing Thomas v. Lane, 23 F. Cas. 957, 960 (No. 13,902) (CC Me. 1813) (Story, J., on Circuit). See also The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 36 (1866) (“Every species of tort, however occurring, and whether on board a vessel or not, if upon the high seas or navigable waters, is of admiralty cognizance”). Under this rule, an action arising out of a collision between two pleasure boats on navigable waters clearly falls within the admiralty jurisdiction of the district courts. When presented with this precise situation in the past, this Court has found it unnecessary even to discuss whether the district court’s admiralty jurisdiction had been properly invoked, instead assuming the propriety of such jurisdiction merely because the accident occurred on navigable waters. Levinson v. Deupree, 345 U. S. 648, 651 (1953). See also Just v. Chambers, 312 U. S. 383 (1941) (injury to guest from carbon monoxide poisoning in the cabin of a pleasure boat). Cf. Coryell v. Phipps, 317 U. S. 406 (1943). In light of these decisions, we address here only the narrow question whether Executive Jet disapproved these earlier decisions sub silentio.

In Executive Jet, this Court held that a suit for property damage to a jet aircraft that struck a flock of sea gulls upon takeoff and sank in the navigable-waters of Lake Erie did not state a claim within the admiralty jurisdiction of the district courts. In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed that the mechanical application of the locality rule as the sole test for determining whether there is admiralty jurisdiction had been widely criticized by commentators, and that the federal courts and Congress had been compelled to make exceptions to this approach in the interests of justice in order to include certain torts with no maritime locality. The Court determined that claims arising from airplane accidents are cognizable in admiralty only when the wrong bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity. 409 U. S., at 268. Given the realities of modern-day air travel, the Executive Jet Court held that, “in the absence of legislation to the contrary, there is no federal admiralty jurisdiction over aviation tort claims arising from flights by land-based aircraft between points within the continental United States.” Id., at 274.

The express holding of Executive Jet is carefully limited to the particular facts of that case. However, the thorough discussion of the theoretical and practical problems inherent in broadly applying the traditional locality rule has prompted several courts and commentators to construe Executive Jet as applying to determinations of federal admiralty jurisdiction outside the context of aviation torts. See, e. g., Kelly v. Smith, 485 F. 2d 520 (CA5 1973); Calamari, The Wake of Executive Jet — A Major Wave or a Minor Ripple, 4 Maritime Law. 52 (1979). We believe that this is a fair construction. Although Executive Jet addressed only the unique problems associated with extending admiralty jurisdiction to aviation torts, much of the Court’s rationale in rejecting a strict locality rule also applies to the maritime context. Indeed, the Executive Jet Court relied extensively on admiralty and maritime decisions of this Court and on congressional action extending admiralty jurisdiction to torts with a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity, but with no maritime locality.

We recognize, as did the Court of Appeals, that the Executive Jet requirement that the wrong have a significant connection with traditional maritime activity is not limited to the aviation context. We also agree that there is no requirement that “the maritime activity be an exclusively commercial one.” 641 F. 2d, at 316. Because the “wrong” here involves the negligent operation of a vessel on navigable waters, we believe that it has a sufficient nexus to traditional maritime activity to sustain admiralty jurisdiction in the District Court.

We are not persuaded by petitioners’ argument that a substantial relationship with commercial maritime activity is necessary because commercial shipping is at the heart of the traditional maritime activity sought to be protected by giving the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over all admiralty suits. This argument is premised on the faulty assumption that, absent this relationship with commercial activity, the need for uniform rules to govern conduct and liability disappears, and “federalism” concerns dictate that these torts be litigated in the state courts.

Although the primary focus of admiralty jurisdiction is unquestionably the protection of maritime commerce, petitioners take too narrow a view of the federal interest sought to be protected. The federal interest in protecting maritime commerce cannot be adequately served if admiralty jurisdiction is restricted to those individuals actually engaged in commercial maritime activity. This interest can be fully vindicated only if all operators of vessels on navigable waters are subject to uniform rules of conduct. The failure to recognize the breadth of this federal interest ignores the potential effect of noncommercial maritime activity on maritime commerce. For example, if these two boats collided at the mouth of the St. Lawrence Seaway, there would be a substantial effect on maritime commerce, without regard to whether either boat was actively, or had been previously, engaged in commercial activity. Furthermore, admiralty law has traditionally been concerned with the conduct alleged to have caused this collision by virtue of its “navigational rules — rules that govern the manner and direction those vessels may rightly move upon the waters.” Executive Jet, 409 U. S., at 270. The potential disruptive impact of a collision between boats on navigable waters, when coupled with the traditional concern that admiralty law holds for navigation, compels the conclusion that this collision between two pleasure boats on navigable waters has a significant relationship with maritime commerce.

Yet, under the strict commercial rule proffered by petitioners, the status of the boats as “pleasure” boats, as opposed to “commercial” boats, would control the existence of admiralty jurisdiction. Application of this rule, however, leads to inconsistent findings or denials of admiralty jurisdiction similar to those found fatal to the locality rule in Executive Jet. Under the commercial rule, fortuitous circumstances such as whether the boat was, or had ever been, rented, or whether it had ever been used for commercial fishing, control the existence of federal-court jurisdiction. The owner of a vessel used for both business and pleasure might be subject to radically different rules of liability depending upon whether his activity at the time of a collision is found by the court ultimately assuming jurisdiction over the controversy to have been sufficiently “commercial.” We decline to inject the uncertainty inherent in such line-drawing into maritime transportation. Moreover, the smooth flow of maritime commerce is promoted when all vessel operators are subject to the same duties and liabilities. Adopting the strict commercial rule would frustrate the goal of promoting the smooth flow of maritime commerce, because the duties and obligations of noncommercial navigators traversing navigable waters flowing through more than one State would differ “depending upon their precise location within the territorial jurisdiction of one state or another.” 641 F. 2d, at 316.

Finally, our interpretation is consistent with congressional activity in this area. First, Congress defines the term “vessel,” for the purpose of determining the scope of various shipping and maritime transportation laws, to include all types of waterborne vessels, without regard to whether they engage in commercial activity. See, e. g., 1 U. S. C. §3 (“‘vessel’ includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water”). Second, the federal “Rules of the Road,” designed for preventing collisions on navigable waters, see, e. g., 94 Stat. 3415,33 U. S. C. § 2001 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp. IV), apply to all vessels without regard to their commercial or noncommercial nature. Third, when it extended admiralty jurisdiction to injuries on land caused by ships on navigable waters, Congress directed that “[t]he admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States shall extend to and include all cases of damage or injury . . caused by a vessel on navigable water. ...” Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 62 Stat. 496, 46 U. S. C. § 740.

In light of the need for uniform rules governing navigation, the potential impact on maritime commerce when two vessels collide on navigable waters, and the uncertainty and confusion that would necessarily accompany a jurisdictional test tied to the commercial use of a given boat, we hold that a complaint alleging a collision between two vessels on navigable waters properly states a claim within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Justice Powell,

with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O’Connor join, dissenting.

No trend of decisions by this Court has been stronger — for two decades or more — than that toward expanding federal jurisdiction at the expense of state interests and state-court jurisdiction. Of course, Congress also has moved steadily and expansively to exercise its Commerce Clause and preemptive power to displace state and local authority. Often decisions of this Court and congressional enactments have been necessary in the national interest. The effect, nevertheless, has been the erosion of federalism — a basic principle of the Constitution and our federal Union.

Today’s Court decision, an example of this trend, is not necessary to further any federal interest. On its face, it is inexplicable. The issue is whether the federal law of admiralty, rather than traditional state tort law, should apply to an accident on the Amite River in Louisiana between two small boats. “One was an eighteen foot pleasure boat powered by a 185 h.p. Johnson outboard motor that was being used for water skiing purposes at the time of the accident. The other was a sixteen foot ‘bass boat’ powered by an outboard motor that was used exclusively for pleasure fishing.” 470 F. Supp. 699, 700 (MD La. 1979). It also is undisputed that both boats were used “exclusively for pleasure”; that neither had ever been used in any “commercial maritime activity”; that none of the persons aboard the boats had ever been engaged in any such activity; and that neither of the boats was used for hire. Ibid. The Court of Appeals conceded that “the place where the accident occurred is seldom, if ever, used for commercial activity.” 641 F. 2d 314, 316 (CA5 1981).

The absence of “commercial activity” on this waterway was held by the Court of Appeals to be immaterial. While recognizing that there was substantial authority to the contrary, the court held that federal admiralty law applied to this accident. This Court now affirms in a decision holding that “all operators of vessels on navigable waters are subject to uniform [federal] rules of conduct,” conferring federal admiralty jurisdiction over all accidents. Ante, at 675 (emphasis deleted). In my view there is no substantial federal interest that justifies a rule extending admiralty jurisdiction to the edge of absurdity. I dissent.

l — l

Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U. S. 249 (1972), established that admiralty jurisdiction does not extend to every accident on navigable waters. The Court today misconstrues Executive Jet. We emphasized in that case that it is “consistent with the history and purpose of admiralty to require . . . that the wrong bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.” Id., at 268 (emphasis added). We acknowledged that “in a literal sense there may be some similarities between the problems posed for a plane downed on water and those faced by a sinking ship.” Id., at 269. But, recalling that “[t]he law of admiralty has evolved over many centuries,” ibid., we noted that admiralty was “concerned with [matters such as] maritime liens, the general average,[] captures and prizes, limitation of liability, cargo damage, and claims for salvage.” Id., at 270. “It is clear, therefore, that neither the fact that a plane goes down on navigable waters nor the fact that the negligence ‘occurs’ while a plane is flying over such waters is enough to create such a relationship to traditional maritime activity as to justify the invocation of admiralty jurisdiction.” Id., at 270-271 (emphasis added).

Executive Jet’s, recognition that “[t]he law of admiralty has evolved over many centuries,” id., at 269, provides the appropriate understanding of that case’s “traditional maritime activity” test. Admiralty is a specialized area of law that, since its ancient inception, has been concerned with the problems of seafaring commercial activity. As Professor Stolz has demonstrated, “[t]here can be no doubt that historically the civil jurisdiction of admiralty was exclusively concerned with matters arising from maritime commerce. ” Stolz, Pleasure Boating and Admiralty: Erie at Sea, 51 Calif. L. Rev. 661, 667 (1963). “The only valid criterion of the admiralty jurisdiction is the relation of the matter — whether it be tor-tious or contractual in nature — to maritime commerce.” 7A J. Moore & A. Pelaez, Federal Practice, Admiralty ¶.325[5], p. 3606 (2d ed. 1982) (emphasis in original).

This case involves only pleasure craft. Neither of these boats had ever been used in any commercial activity. There is, therefore, no connection with any historic federal admiralty interest. In centuries past — long before modem means of transportion by land and air existed — rivers and oceans were the basic means of commerce, and the vessels that used the waterways were limited primarily to commercial and naval purposes. “Pleasure boating is basically a new phenomenon, the product of a technology that can produce small boats at modest cost and of an economy that puts such craft within the means of almost everyone.” Stolz, supra, at 661. Thus, the “traditional” connection emphasized in Executive Jet is absent where pleasure boats are concerned. Moreover, even the Court today is hard put to identify an arguably substantial federal admiralty interest of any kind. I now comment briefly on the Court’s reasoning.

M-i H=H

The Court’s justification for extending federal admiralty jurisdiction to the use of millions of small pleasure boats on the countless rivers, streams, and inlets of our country is the need for “uniform rules of conduct.” Ante, at 675. I agree, of course, that standard codes should govern traffic on waterways, just as it is crucial that certain uniform rules of traffic prevail on neighborhood streets as well as interstate highways. But this is no reason for admiralty jurisdiction to be extended to all boating activity. Congress has provided some rules governing water traffic, just as it has done for some land traffic. See 23 U. S. C. § 154 (55 m.p.h. speed limit). Yet no one suggests that federal jurisdiction is needed to prevent chaos in automobile traffic, or that only federal courts are qualified to try accident cases.

State courts are duty bound to apply federal as well as local “uniform rules of conduct.” See Testa v. Katt, 330 U. S. 386 (1947). The Court does not suggest that state courts lack competency to apply federal as well as state law to this type of water traffic. And this Court stands ready, if necessary, to review state decisions to ensure that important issues of federal law are resolved correctly. As Judge Thomberry said in dissent in this case, “the desire for certainty cannot alone justify the assumption of federal control over matters of purely local concern . . . .” 641 F. 2d, at 317. Consequently the Court’s premise that there is a need for uniform traffic rules fails to support its conclusion that federal jurisdiction must be extended to cover the type of activity that typically involves small pleasure craft.

In an effort to rescue its logic, the Court refers to the “potential disruptive impact of a collision between boats on navigable waters . . . .” Ante, at 675. Yet this reasoning is countered by Executive Jet — a decision that the Court acknowledges to be a key authority for this case. For if “potential disruptive impact” on traffic in navigable waters provides a sufficient connection with “traditional maritime activity,” then the crash of an airplane “in the navigable waters of Lake Erie,” 409 U. S., at 250, necessarily would support admiralty jurisdiction. The holding of Executive Jet is precisely to the contrary. The Court’s reasoning in essence resurrects the locality rule that Executive Jet rejected, for any accident “located” on navigable waters has a “potential disruptive impact” on traffic there.

Oral argument in this case revealed the degree to which the Court’s decision displaces state authority. The Court posed a hypothetical in which children, for their own amusement, used rowboats to net crawfish from a stream. Two of the boats collide and sink near the water’s edge, forcing the children to wade ashore. Counsel for respondents replied that this accident would fall within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts, provided that the waterway was navigable. Tr. of Oral Arg. 24. Today the Court agrees.

For me, however, this example illustrates the substantial — and purposeless — expansion of federal authority and federal-court jurisdiction accomplished by the Court’s holding. In this respect I agree with Chief Judge Haynsworth:

“The admiralty jurisdiction in England and in this country was bom of a felt need to protect the domestic shipping industry in its competition with foreign shipping, and to provide a uniform body of law for the governance of domestic and foreign shipping, engaged in the movement of commercial vessels from state to state and to and from foreign states. The operation of small pleasure craft on inland waters which happen to be navigable has no more apparent relationship to that kind of concern than the operation of the same kind of craft on artificial inland lakes which are not navigable waters.” Crosson v. Vance, 484 F. 2d 840 (CA4 1973).

In the rowboat example, as in the case at bar, the Federal Government has little or no genuine interest in the resolution of a garden variety tort case. “Only the burdening of the federal courts and the frustration of the purposes of state tort law would be thereby served.” Adams v. Montana Power Co., 528 F. 2d 437, 440-441 (CA9 1975).

The Court’s opinion largely ignores the fact that expansions of federal admiralty jurisdiction are accompanied by application of substantive — and pre-empting — federal admiralty law. Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, 214-218 (1917); see Kossick v. United Fruit Co., 365 U. S. 731, 738-742 (1961). “The chief objection to application of admiralty law to pleasure boating is that it implicitly prohibits the exercise of state legislative power in an area in which local legislatures have generally been thought competent and in which Congress cannot be expected either to be interested or to be responsive to local needs.” Stolz, 51 Calif. L. Rev., at 664. For me, this federalism concern is the dominating issue in the case. I agree that “the law of pleasure boating will develop faster and more rationally if the creative capacities of the state courts and legislatures are freed of an imaginery [sic] federal concern with anything that floats on navigable waters.” Id., at 719.

Federal courts should not displace state responsibility and choke the federal judicial docket on the basis of federal con-cems that in truth are only “imaginary.” In accord with the teaching of Executive Jet, I would not extend federal admiralty jurisdiction beyond its traditional roots and reason for existence. I dissent from the Court’s decision to sever a historic doctrine from its historic justification.

       The wife and children of the decedent also named respondent June Allen as a defendant. They alleged that Allen was operating the vessel at the time of the collision, and that the decedent’s death was caused by either the negligence of Allen or that of petitioner Eliser. Allen counterclaimed, alleging that the decedent had been operating the boat, and that her injuries were caused by his negligence. The factual dispute concerning whether the decedent or Allen was operating the boat is irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue. However, because of the divergent interests and claims of respondent Allen and the respondent family of the decedent below, we refer only to the decedent’s family when we use the term “respondents” throughout this opinion.

       The District Court assumed that the Amite River is navigable at the site of the collision. Although the issue is not free from doubt, it appears from the opinion and the disposition of the Court of Appeals that the court found that the river is navigable at this site although seldom, if ever, used for commercial traffic. This opinion is premised on our understanding that the river at this point is navigable, see Brief for Petitioners 20, but we leave open the question whether petitioners have preserved the opportunity to argue this issue upon further development of facts in the District Court.

       Judge Thornberry, concurring in part and dissenting in part, argued that federal admiralty jurisdiction could not be sustained if the river at the site of the accident, although navigable, did not also function as an integral or major “artery of commerce.” 641 F. 2d, at 317.

       In addition to noting these examples where strict application of the locality rule would have deprived the courts of admiralty jurisdiction despite a clear connection to maritime activity, the Court noted the difficulties of extending jurisdiction to torts with a maritime locality, but absolutely no connection to maritime activity. See 409 U. S., at 255-256 (disapproving decisions sustaining admiralty jurisdiction over claims by swimmers injured by other swimmers or submerged objects in shallow waters near shore); id., at 256-257 (approving decisions requiring some connection with traditional maritime activity).

       Not every accident in navigable waters that might disrupt maritime commerce will support federal admiralty jurisdiction. In Executive Jet, for example, we concluded that the sinking of the plane in navigable waters did not give rise to a claim in admiralty even though an aircraft sinking in the water could create a hazard for the navigation of commercial vessels in the vicinity. However, when this kind of potential hazard to maritime commerce arises out of activity that bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity, as does the navigation of the boats in this case, admiralty jurisdiction is appropriate.

       Petitioners argue that admiralty jurisdiction in the federal courts is unnecessary to ensure the uniform application of the Rules of the Road to boat navigation because state courts are bound by the construction federal courts give to statutes relating to navigation. Assuming that petitioners are correct, this fact does not negate the importance that Congress has attached to the federal interest in having all vessels operating on navigable waters governed by uniform rules and obligations, which is furthered by consistent application of federal maritime legislation under federal admiralty jurisdiction.

       We refer to this language only to demonstrate that Congress did not require a commercial-activity nexus when it extended admiralty jurisdiction. We express no opinion on whether this Act could be construed to provide an independent basis for jurisdiction.

       The doctrine of general average refers to rules for dividing the loss suffered when cargo must be thrown overboard in order to lighten a ship. See generally G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 244-271 (2d ed. 1975).

       “Maritime courts, differing somewhat in name and somewhat in jurisdiction, have been established in all civilized nations at various periods in their history. The dates of their establishment may be said, because of the circumstances which brought them into being, to afford a very fair test of the advancement in civilization of their respective nations.
      “In every case their establishment has been due to the same cause, the necessities of commerce.” T. Etting, The Admiralty Jurisdiction in America 7-8 (1879) (emphasis added).

       See also Black, Admiralty Jurisdiction: Critique and Suggestions, 50 Colum. L. Rev. 259, 280 (1950) (“The main thing is that if the court of admiralty is to exist at all, it should exist because the business of river, lake, and ocean shipping calls for supervision by a tribunal enjoying a particular expertness in regard to the more complicated concerns of that business”) (emphasis added); Swaim, Yes, Virginia, There is an Admiralty: The Rodrigue Case, 16 Loyola L. Rev. 43, 44 (1970) (“Maritime commerce— and nothing more — is the raison d’etre for the courts and rules of admiralty”); Bridwell & Whitten, Admiralty Jurisdiction: The Outlook for the Doctrine of Executive Jet, 1974 Duke L. J. 757, 793; Comment, 12 Cal. Western L. Rev. 535, 558, n. 133 (1976) (“The historical justification for admiralty law and courts is commercial. Its law was designed to meet commercial needs and practice”); Note, 34 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 121, 139-MO (1977) (“Those pleasure craft torts occurring on commercially navigable waters must be considered in light of the historical design of admiralty jurisdiction to determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction furthers the commercial interests which admiralty courts were created to serve”).

       At the beginning of the 19th century, “the commerce of the country was almost entirely limited to the foreign and coasting trade. The only roads which existed led from the woods to the principal towns on navigable waters. There was but one connected route from North to South at the commencement of the Revolution, and this was true also when the Constitution was framed. Even in 1796 the only roads with which the States were much concerned were those which led to navigable waters; the care of ‘cross roads,’ as the roads leading from State to State were called by one who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention, the States were unwilling to assume. ‘Fifty miles back from the waters of the Atlantic the country was an unbroken jungle.’ In the vigorous phrase used by Henry Clay, ‘the country had scarcely any interior.’ Turnpike roads did not come into general use until the nineteenth century.” E. Prentice, The Federal Power over Carriers and Corporations 59-60 (1907) (footnotes omitted).

       For this reason, the jurisdictional issue in this case is relatively new and, until today, has not been addressed by this Court. The Court’s contrary suggestion, ante, at 672, relies on irrelevant dicta from decisions of the last century that do not involve pleasure craft. E. g., The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 36 (1866) (holding admiralty jurisdiction does not include adjudication of a loss of packing-houses on a wharf that arose from fire on an adjacent merchant ship at anchor). The Court also cites cases apparently involving pleasure boats in which the jurisdictional question was not at issue. See Levinson v. Deupree, 345 U. S. 648, 651 (1953); Coryell v. Phipps, 317 U. S. 406 (1943); Just v. Chambers, 312 U. S. 383 (1941). “[Wjhen questions of jurisdiction have been passed on in prior decisions sub silentio, this Court has never considered itself bound when a subsequent case finally brings the jurisdictional issue before us.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528, 535, 3n. 5 (1974).
      The jurisdictional issue has both a constitutional and a statutory element, since both Art. Ill and 28 U. S. C. § 1333 must support the exercise of jurisdiction in this case. The Court necessarily must find that both provisions are satisfied. Because construction of the statute is sufficient to support the result I would reach, I intimate no views on the constitutional extent of Art. Ill admiralty jurisdiction.

       There were 14.3 million pleasure boats in the United States in 1980. See U. S. Dept, of Transportation, U. S. Coast Guard, Boating Statistics 1980, p. 8 (1981).

       If a "potential disruptive effect” on interstate traffic in fact implicated a federal interest strong enough to support federal jurisdiction, then federal courts also should hear cases in which accidents disrupt similar land traffic. Cf. “71 Feared Dead as Plane Hits Bridge, Smashes Cars, Plunges Into Potomac,” Washington Post, Jan. 14, 1982, p. Al, col. 1.
      According to the Court, the interest in expanding admiralty jurisdiction is supported by the difficulty of defining “pleasure boating.” Ante, at 675-676. In view of the myriad of definitional tasks performed regularly by state and federal courts, determining in a particular case whether the boating at issue is essentially for pleasure rather than commerce rarely would present a difficult problem for any court.
      The Court also states that its action "is consistent with congressional activity in this area,” ante, at 676, citing a number of federal statutes. This point is of course wholly irrelevant to the constitutional extent of admiralty jurisdiction. Moreover, the only statute cited having any relation to jurisdictional matters is the Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 62 Stat. 496, 46 U. S. C. § 740. This Act provides:
      “The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States shall extend to and include all cases of damage or injury, to person or property, caused by a vessel on navigable water, notwithstanding that such damage or injury be done or consummated on land.

      “In any such case suit may be brought in rem or in personam according to the principles of law and rules of practice obtaining in eases where the injury or damage has been done and consummated on navigable water” (emphasis added).
      As its text makes plain, “[t]his Act was passed specifically to overrule cases, such as The Plymouth, supra, holding that admiralty does not provide a remedy for damage done to land structures by ships on navigable waters.” Executive Jet, 409 U. S., at 260. This purpose — and not any intent to expand or affect admiralty jurisdiction respecting pleasure boats— consistently appears in the Act’s legislative history. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 1593, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 1-6 (1948); H. R. Rep. No. 1523, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 1-6 (1948). See also Famum, Admiralty Jurisdiction and Amphibious Torts, 43 Yale L. J. 34, 44-45 (1933); Note, 63 Harv. L. Rev. 861, 868 (1950); Note, The Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction to Include Amphibious Torts, 37 Geo. L. J. 252 (1949); Note, Effects of Recent Legislation Upon the Admiralty Law, 17 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 353 (1949). And this Court has never sustained the constitutionality of this Act.
      With respect, the Court’s statutory arguments must be regarded as makeweights.

       In construing the extent of 28 U. S. C. § 1333 admiralty jurisdiction, see n. 5, supra, I would prefer to leave to Congress an extension of federal authority of this magnitude. See n. 6, supra. Congress has the power to hold hearings and to weigh factors beyond the proper competency of a court.

       “It should be emphasized . . . that, in the law of admiralty, the term ‘jurisdiction’ denotes both the power of a court to hear and dispose of a certain controversy, and also the power to prescribe rules of decision to be applied by those courts considering the controversy. This is so because a court of admiralty sits solely to administer and apply the maritime law.” Swaim, supra n. 3, at 43 (footnotes and emphasis omitted).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Marshall Justice O’Connor,

license: Public Domain

text:
    TAYLOR v. ALABAMA
    No. 81-5152.
    Argued March 23, 1982
    Decided June 23, 1982
    MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Brennan, White, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., joined. O’Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C. J., and Powell and Rehnquist, JJ., joined, post, p. 694.

      Robert M. Beno argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.

      Thomas R. Allison, Assistant Attorney General of Alabama, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Charles A. Graddick, Attorney General.

        Arthur F. Mathews and James E. Coleman, Jr., filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging reversal.

        Fred E. Inbau, Wayne W. Schmidt, James P. Manak, Patrick F. Healy, William K. Lambie, Richard J. Brzeczek, Frank G. Carrington, Courtney A. Evans, Robert K. Corbin, Attorney General of Arizona, and Steven J. Twist, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General of Illinois, and Melbourne Noel, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and William L.Parker, Jr., filed a brief for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.

   Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the narrow question whether petitioner’s confession should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that the evidence was properly admitted. Because the decision below is inconsistent with our decisions in Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200 (1979), and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590 (1975), we reverse.

I

In 1978, a grocery store in Montgomery, Ala., was robbed. There had been a number of robberies in this area, and the police had initiated an intensive manhunt in an effort to apprehend the robbers. An individual who was at that time incarcerated on unrelated charges told a police officer that “he had heard that [petitioner] Omar Taylor was involved in the robbery.” App. 4. This individual had never before given similar information to this officer, did not tell the officer where he had heard this information, and did not provide any details of the crime. This tip was insufficient to give the police probable cause to obtain a warrant or to arrest petitioner.

Nonetheless, on the basis of this information, two officers arrested petitioner without a warrant. They told petitioner that he was being arrested in connection with the grocery-store robbery, searched him, and took him to the station for questioning. Petitioner was given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). At the station, he was fingerprinted, readvised of his Miranda rights, questioned, and placed in a lineup. The victims of the robbery were unable to identify him in the lineup. The police told petitioner that his fingerprints matched those on some grocery items that had been handled by one of the participants in the robbery. After a short visit with his girlfriend and a male companion, petitioner signed a waiver-of-rights form and executed a written confession. The form and the signed confession were admitted into evidence.

Petitioner objected to the admission of this evidence at his trial. He argued that his warrantless arrest was not supported by probable cause, that he had been involuntarily transported to the police station, and that the confession must be suppressed as the fruit of this illegal arrest. The trial court overruled this objection, and petitioner was convicted. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, 399 So. 2d 875 (1980), holding that the facts of this case are virtually indistinguishable from those presented to this Court in Dunaway v. New York, supra, and that the confession should not have been admitted into evidence. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals, 399 So. 2d 881 (1981), and we granted certiorari, 454 U. S. 963 (1981).

II

In Brown v. Illinois, supra, and Dunaway v. New York, supra, the police arrested suspects without probable cause. The suspects were transported to police headquarters, advised of their Miranda rights, and interrogated. They confessed within two hours of their arrest. This Court held that the confessions were not admissible at trial, reasoning that a confession obtained through custodial interrogation after an illegal arrest should be excluded unless intervening events break the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the confession so that the confession is ‘“sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint.”’ Brown v. Illinois, supra, at 602 (quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 486 (1963)). See also Dunaway v. New York, supra, at 217. This Court identified several factors that should be considered in determining whether a confession has been purged of the taint of the illegal arrest: “[t]he temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances,. . . and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” Brown v. Illinois, supra, at 603-604 (citations and footnote omitted); Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S., at 218. The State bears the burden of proving that a confession is admissible. Ibid.

In Brown and Dunaway, this Court firmly established that the fact that the confession may be “voluntary” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, in the sense that Miranda warnings were given and understood, is not by itself sufficient to purge the taint of the illegal arrest. In this situation, a finding of “voluntariness” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment is merely a threshold requirement for Fourth Amendment analysis. See Dunaway v. New York, supra, at 217. The reason for this approach is clear: “[t]he exclusionary rule, . . . when utilized to effectuate the Fourth Amendment, serves interests and policies that are distinct from those it serves under the Fifth” Amendment. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S., at 601. If Miranda warnings were viewed as a talisman that cured all Fourth Amendment violations, then the constitutional guarantee against unlawful searches and seizures would be reduced to a mere ‘“form of words.’” Id., at 603 (quoting Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 648 (1961)).

This case is a virtual replica of both Brown and Dunaway. Petitioner was arrested without probable cause in the hope that something would turn up, and he confessed shortly thereafter without any meaningful intervening event. The State’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. The State begins by focusing on the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession. It observes that the length of time between the illegal arrest and the confession was six hours in this case, while in Brown and Dunaway the incriminating statements were obtained within two hours. However, a difference of a few hours is not significant where, as here, petitioner was in police custody, unrepresented by counsel, and he was questioned on several occasions, fingerprinted, and subjected to a lineup. The State has not even demonstrated the amount of this time that was spent in interrogation, arguing only that petitioner “had every opportunity to consider his situation, to organize his thoughts, to contemplate his constitutional rights, and to exercise his free will.” Brief for Respondent 11.

The State points to several intervening events that it argues are sufficient to break the connection between the illegal arrest and petitioner’s confession. It observes that petitioner was given Miranda warnings three times. As our foregoing discussion of Brown and Dunaway demonstrates, however, the State’s reliance on the giving of Miranda warnings is misplaced. The State also observes that petitioner visited with his girlfriend and a male companion before he confessed. This claim fares no better. According to the officer and petitioner, these two visitors were outside the interrogation room where petitioner was being questioned. After petitioner signed a waiver-of-rights form, he was allowed to meet with these visitors. The State fails to explain how this 5- to 10-minute visit, after which petitioner immediately recanted his former statements that he knew nothing about the robbery and signed the confession, could possibly have contributed to his ability to consider carefully and objectively his options and to exercise his free will. This suggestion is particularly dubious in light of petitioner’s uncontro-verted testimony that his girlfriend was emotionally upset at the time of this visit. If any inference could be drawn, it would be that this visit had just the opposite effect.

The State points to an arrest warrant filed after petitioner had been arrested and while he was being interrogated as another significant “intervening event.” While petitioner was in custody, the police determined that the fingerprints on some grocery items matched those that they had taken from petitioner immediately after his arrest. Based on this comparison, an arrest warrant was filed. The filing of this warrant, however, is irrelevant to whether the confession was the fruit of the illegal arrest. This case is not like Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356 (1972), where the defendant was brought before a committing Magistrate who advised him of his rights and set bail. Here, the arrest warrant was filed ex parte, based on the comparison of the fingerprints found at the scene of the crime and petitioner’s fingerprints, which had been taken immediately after his arrest. The initial fingerprints, which were themselves the fruit of petitioner’s illegal arrest, see Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721 (1969), and which were used to extract the confession from petitioner, cannot be deemed sufficient “attenuation” to break the connection between the illegal arrest and the confession merely because they also formed the basis for an arrest warrant that was filed while petitioner was being interrogated.

Finally, the State argues that the police conduct here was not flagrant or purposeful, and that we should not follow our decisions in Brown and Dunaway for that reason. However, we fail to see any relevant distinction between the conduct here and that in Dunaway. In this case, as in Dunaway, the police effectuated an investigatory arrest without probable cause, based on an uncorroborated informant’s tip, and involuntarily transported petitioner to the station for interrogation in the hope that something would turn up. The fact that the police did not physically abuse petitioner, or that the confession they obtained may have been “voluntary” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, does not cure the illegality of the initial arrest. Alternatively, the State contends that the police conduct here argues for adopting a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. To date, we have not recognized such an exception, and we decline to do so here.

III

In sum, petitioner’s confession was the fruit of his illegal arrest. Under our decisions in Brown v. Illinois and Dun-away v. New York, the confession clearly should not have been admitted at his trial. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court and remand this case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice O’Connor,

with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Powell, and Justice Rehnquist join, dissenting.

The Court holds today that Omar Taylor’s detailed confession was the fruit of an illegal arrest, and consequently, should be suppressed. Because I conclude that neither the facts nor the law supports the Court’s analysis, I respectfully dissent.

I

In the course of their investigation of the Moseley robbery, Montgomery police questioned Charles Martin, who was being held on unrelated rape and robbery charges. Martin stated that “he had heard that Omar Taylor was involved in the robbery of Moseley’s Grocery,” Tr. 6, but the police made no attempt to establish either Martin’s credibility as an informant or the reliability of the information he provided.

Based only on this tip, which did not provide probable cause, Sergeants Alford and Rutland arrested Taylor a little before 3 p.m. on January 4, 1979.. At that time, they told him why he was being arrested and advised him of his Miranda rights, but asked him no questions regarding the robbery. Tr. 20, 24. When they arrived at the police station, the officers turned Taylor over to detectives.

After Taylor had been fingerprinted and signed a form acknowledging his Miranda rights, Detective Wilson questioned him for about 15 minutes, Tr. 48, and placed him in a lineup before one of the victims, Mrs. Moseley. Id., at 37-38. At the lineup, which lasted about an hour, id., at 48, Mrs. Moseley was unable to identify the petitioner. Following the lineup, Detective Wilson told Taylor that his fingerprints matched the fingerprints removed from grocery items handled by one of the robbers. Nevertheless, the petitioner denied knowledge of the robbery.

Toward 9 p.m. that evening, Detective Hicks readvised Taylor of his Miranda rights, Tr. 25, and Taylor once again read and signed a form setting forth his Miranda rights. Tr. 28, 125. At no time did Taylor ask for a lawyer or indicate that he did not want to talk to police. Id., at 28-29, 35, 40. During his 5- to 10-minute interview with Taylor, Detective Hicks confronted him with the fingerprint evidence. Id., at 36. Hicks urged the petitioner to cooperate with the police, but carefully refrained from making him any promises, stating that at most he could inform the judge of the petitioner’s cooperation. Id., at 31, 34. Taylor continued to deny involvement in the robbery. Id., at 35-36.

Following this conversation, both the petitioner’s girlfriend and his neighbor came to the police station and requested to speak with him. When Taylor indicated that he wanted to speak with his friends, Detective Hicks left them alone in his office for several minutes. After that meeting, the petitioner confessed to the crime, and signed a detailed written confession.

Before trial, the petitioner moved to suppress his confession, arguing that it was the product of an illegal arrest, and that it had been obtained in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The trial judge assumed that the arrest was illegal, but found that the confession was voluntary, consistent with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and that “there were enough intervening factors between the arrest and confession” to overcome the taint of the illegal arrest. Id., at 116. Accordingly, he admitted the confession.

II

Although the Court misapprehends the facts of the present case, it has stated correctly the controlling substantive law. In the Court’s words, “a confession obtained through custodial interrogation after an illegal arrest should be excluded unless intervening events break the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the confession so that the confession is ‘sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint.’” Ante, at 690 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590, 602 (1975)).

In Brown, this Court emphasized that “Miranda warnings are an important factor ... in determining whether the confession [was] obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest.” Id., at 603. The Court did not discount the significance of other factors, however, noting that “Miranda warnings, alone and per se, cannot always make the act sufficiently a product of free will to break, for Fourth Amendment purposes, the causal connection between the illegality and the confession.” Ibid. Brown holds, therefore, that not only Miranda warnings, but also “[t]he temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances, and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct are all relevant.” Id., at 603-604 (footnotes and citations omitted).

In light of those factors, the Brown Court reviewed the record and found that “Brown’s first statement was separated from his illegal arrest by less than two hours, and [that] there was no intervening event of significance whatsoever.” Id., at 604. Moreover, the police conduct in arresting Brown was particularly egregious. The “impropriety of the arrest was obvious,” and the “manner in which Brown’s arrest was effected gives the appearance of having been calculated to cause surprise, fright, and confusion.” Id., at 605. The Court held that as a consequence the confession should have been suppressed.

Four Terms later, in Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 204 (1979), this Court reaffirmed the Brown rule that in order to use at trial statements obtained following an arrest on less than probable cause

“the prosecution must show not only that the statements meet the Fifth Amendment voluntariness standard, but also that the causal connection between the statements and the illegal arrest is broken sufficiently to purge the primary taint of the illegal arrest.”

Finding the facts in Dunaway to be “virtually a replica of the situation in Brown,” id., at 218, the Court held that the petitioner’s confession should have been suppressed. Critical to the Court’s holding was its observation that the petitioner “confessed without any intervening event of significance.” Ibid. See id., at 219 (“No intervening events broke the connection between petitioner’s illegal detention and his confession”).

Ill

Our task is to apply the law as articulated in Brown and Dunaway to the facts of this case.

The first significant consideration is that following his unlawful arrest, Taylor was warned on three separate occasions that he

“had a right to remain silent, [and] anything he said could be used against him in a court of law[;] he had the right to have an attorney present, [and] if he could not afford one, the State would appoint one for him[;] he could answer questions but he could stop answering at any time.” Tr. 23.

Under Brown and Dunaway, these warnings must be counted as “an important factor ... in determining whether the confession [was] obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest,” Brown v. Illinois, supra, at 603, though they are, standing alone, insufficient to prove that the primary taint of an illegal arrest had been purged.

Second, in contrast to the facts in Brown, the facts in the present case show that the petitioner was not subjected to intimidating police misconduct. In Brown, police had broken into the petitioner’s house and searched it. When the petitioner later came home, two officers pointed their guns at him and arrested him, leading the Court to conclude that “[t]he manner in which [the petitioner’s] arrest was effected gives the appearance of having been calculated to cause surprise, fright, and confusion.” '422 U. S., at 605. By contrast, nothing in the record before us indicates that the petitioner’s arrest was violent, or designed to “cause surprise, fright, and confusion.” Instead, Montgomery officers approached Taylor, asked him his name, and told him that he was under arrest for the Moseley robbery. They then searched him, advised him of his rights, and took him to the police station.

Third, while in both Brown and Dunaway there was “no intervening event of significance whatsoever,” 422 U. S., at 604, in the present case Taylor’s girlfriend and neighbor came to the police station and asked to speak with him. Before meeting with his two friends, the petitioner steadfastly had denied involvement in the Moseley robbery. Immediately following the meeting, the petitioner gave a complete and detailed confession of his participation in the armed robbery. This meeting between the petitioner and his two friends, as described by the police in their testimony at the suppression hearing, plainly constituted an intervening circumstance.

Finally, the record reveals that the petitioner spent most of the time between his arrest and confession by himself. In Dunaway and Brown, by contrast, the defendants were interrogated continuously before they made incriminating statements.

In sum, when these four factors are considered together, it is obvious that there is no sufficient basis on which to overturn the trial court’s finding that “there were enough intervening factors” to overcome the taint of the illegal arrest. In fact, I believe it is clear that the State carried its burden of proof. The petitioner was warned of his rights to remain silent and to have a lawyer present, and there is no dispute that he understood those rights or that he waived them voluntarily and without coercion. After receiving three sets of such warnings, he met with his girlfriend and neighbor, at his request. Following that meeting, at which no police officers were present, the petitioner decided to confess to his participation in the robbery. The petitioner’s confession was not proximately caused by his illegal arrest, but was the product of a decision based both on knowledge of his constitutional rights and on the discussion with his friends. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

       According to petitioner, his girlfriend became upset upon hearing the officer advise petitioner to cooperate. App. 16. Contrary to the allegations in the dissent, at no point did the officer contradict petitioner’s version of his girlfriend’s emotional state or petitioner’s statement that his girlfriend was present at the time the officer advised him to cooperate. In fact, the testimony from both petitioner and the officer with respect to this visit are consistent. The officer testified only that he advised petitioner to cooperate between the time petitioner signed a rights form at the commencement of this interrogation period and the time that petitioner signed the statement of confession. Tr. 31,136-137. He also testified that during this same interval, he allowed the short visit between petitioner and his girlfriend. Ibid. The District Court made no findings of fact with respect to these incidents. In any event, even assuming the accuracy of the dissent’s version of the facts, compare post, at 695, and n. 2, with Tr. 31, 136-137, the dissent offers no explanation for its conclusion that this 5- to 10-minute visit should be viewed as an intervening event that purges the taint of the illegal arrest.

       Petitioner also raises an ambiguous objection to the admission of fingerprint evidence at his trial. The trial court granted petitioner’s motion to suppress the initial fingerprints as the fruit of his illegal arrest under Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721 (1969), and granted the State’s motion to take petitioner’s fingerprints at trial. The nature of petitioner’s objection to the admission of any fingerprint evidence at trial is unclear, and it is also uncertain whether an objection to the procedure used for taking the second set of fingerprints has been properly preserved for our review. In any event, we need not reach this issue because we reverse the decision on the ground that the confession should not have been admitted. To the extent that petitioner still may challenge the fingerprinting procedure employed below, the state courts should be given the opportunity to address this challenge in the first instance.

       The police, however, suspected Martin of complicity in the Moseley robbery, Tr. 16. It later developed that Martin had instigated, planned, and participated in the robbery.

       The Court’s rather different account of this meeting apparently stems from a decision to accept the testimony most favorable to the holding it wants to reach. That decision, however, runs counter to the longstanding practice of federal appellate courts to uphold the denial of the motion to suppress if, in the absence of any express findings by the district court, there is any reasonable view of the evidence to support it. See United States v. Payton, 615 F. 2d 922, 923 (CA1), cert. denied, 446 U. S. 969 (1980); United States v. Vicknair, 610 F. 2d 372, 376, n. 4 (CA5), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 823 (1980). In the present case, the officer testified that Taylor’s “girlfriend came to us and said she wanted to talk to Omar, and we told Omar she was outside and he wanted to talk to her. And at that time, we let him talk to her.” Tr. 35. Detective Hicks specifically denied that he had urged Taylor to talk to his girlfriend. Id., at 35, 133-134. The detective acknowledged that he had told the petitioner that he could inform the judge of the petitioner’s cooperation, but he expressly denied making any other statements to Taylor or his girlfriend about “cooperation.” Id., at 81, 134.
      The petitioner, of course, had a vastly different version. He testified that the police had brought his girlfriend into the room and told him, in her presence, that he was facing 10 years to life in prison, but that if he cooperated they might be able to arrange a suspended sentence or probation. Upon hearing that remark, the petitioner’s girlfriend became upset and began to cry, at which point the police left the petitioner alone with his friends. Id., at 52. As we noted above, the police expressly denied making any such statements. More importantly, upon comparing the two versions, it becomes clear that in an effort to support its holding, the Court has parsed through the petitioner’s story and plucked those tidbits that the police did not expressly contradict. This method of setting forth the facts of a case on appellate review hardly comports with the rule that an appellate court must adopt any reasonable view of the evidence that supports the trial court’s ruling.
      Since there is nothing unreasonable about the police account of the meeting between the petitioner and his friends, that version is the one we must accept on review. At the hearing, Detective Hicks testified that after Taylor asked to speak with his friends, the police left them alone together. There is no suggestion, other than the petitioner’s discredited version of the meeting, that the police said anything to the petitioner’s girlfriend, or that she became upset. Thus, the Court errs in stating that the petitioner’s girlfriend became upset because of statements made by the police, and in intimating that the police created a coercive atmosphere in which the petitioner could not carefully consider his options and, on the basis of his friends’ advice, decide to confess to the robbery.

       In that confession, the petitioner stated that Charles Martin approached him with guns and a plan to rob Moseley’s Grocery. Taylor’s role in the robbery was to distract Mr. Moseley by buying some groceries. Just before his accomplices pulled out their guns, Taylor put down the groceries and walked outside to see whether an approaching car was a police car. When he saw that it was not a police car, he began to reenter the store, but stopped when he saw the robbery taking place. Thereafter he fled, met his cofelons at a preassigned place, and took his share of the money. Id., at 128-132.

         In fact, the State did not seriously contend that the arrest had been based on probable cause. See id., at 8, 10.

       The holding in Brown was derived from this Court’s seminal decision in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963), in which we rejected a “but for” test for determining whether to suppress evidence gathered following a Fourth Amendment violation.
      “We need not hold that all evidence is ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is ‘whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ Maguire, Evidence of Guilt, 221 (1959).” Id., at 487-488.

       The petitioner confessed some six hours after his arrest. As Justice Stevens noted in his concurring opinion in Dunaway, the “temporal relationship between the arrest and the confession may be an ambiguous factor,” 442 U. S., at 220, for a lengthy detention could be used to exploit an illegal arrest at least as easily as a brief detention. In the present case, there seems to be nothing remarkable, one way or the other, about the length of detention.

       The Court has taken each circumstance out of context and examined it to see whether it alone would be enough to purge the taint of the illegal arrest. The Court’s failure to consider the circumstances of this case as a whole may have contributed to its erroneous conclusion.