at the station house, although it would apply to “any evidence found, or statements taken, inside the home. ” Id. at 20, 110 S.Ct. 1640 (emphasis added). In each of those cases, evidence obtained from a criminal defendant following arrest was suppressed because the police lacked probable cause. The three cases stand for the familiar proposition that the indirect fruits of an illegal search or arrest should be suppressed when they bear a sufficiently close relationship to the underlying illegality. After Harris, the presence of probable cause to arrest has proved dispositive when deciding whether the exclusionary rule applies to evidence or statements obtained after the defendant is placed in custody. See, e.g., United States v. Villa-Velazquez, 282 F.3d 553, 556 (8th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Even before Harris, we acknowledged that the
holding that the court did not err in concluding that a defendant was not in custody where he made statements to law enforcement officers in his own home was not physically restrained during the conversation never manifested an intent to terminate the interaction and the officers never indicated to the defendant that they had probable cause to arrest him holding that because law enforcement officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant the evidence obtained during the time that the defendant was in lawful custody was not tainted by the earlier unlawful entry into his residence discussing harris 495 us at 18 110 sct 1640 holding that there was sufficient probable cause to search a defendants residence after evidence of drug dealing was found in his car during a traffic stop that was conducted when the defendant was coming from his residence and noting that under such circumstances a practical commonsense conclusion could be made that the drugs and money had been at the defendants residence a short time before the stop holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence holding that the officers had sufficient evidence to believe that the defendant was inside the residence to execute the arrest warrant because the officers relied on the anonymous tip given to the defendants parole officer the drivers identification of the defendant as meaty in a photograph and his assertion that meaty was in the residence at that time selling drugs