48
have the courts bar evidence that he himself deliberately uncovered.
The present situation is much closer to the bribery case which was before the California court in People v. Guillory, 178 Cal. App. 2d 854, supra, than it is to Nueslein. There, the defendant claimed that the offer of the bribe would not have been made except for the illegal arrest. The court noted that nothing in the arrest compelled the bribe and held that the illegal entry and arrest had nothing to do with the bribery "except as they furnished the setting for it." So here, the illegal entry may have furnished the setting for informing Toy of Hom Way's accusation, but the entry did not cause Toy to send the officers to Yee.
The factual pattern here is also analogous to that before the Second Circuit on the issue of consent in Burgos v. United States, 269 F. 2d 763, 766 (C.A. 2), certiorari denied, 362 U.S. 942. In Burgos, after a defendant had been arrested for illegal entry into the country as an alien, he was asked about narcotics and handed over a small glassine envelope saying that it was for his own use. Subsequently a search disclosed a large quantity of narcotics. Despite the fact that, as petitioner argues, the courts have generally, particularly in recent years, tended to find that consent to a search at the time of arrest is not voluntary,[1] the district court and the court of appeals found that Burgos had voluntarily turned over the glassine envelope. The court of appeals pointed out that he was
- ↑ See United States v. Arrington, 215 F. 2d 630 (C.A. 7); Catalanotte v. United States, 208 F. 2d 264 (C.A. 6); Judd v. United States, 190 F. 2d 649, 651 (C.A.D.C.).
