course of the stop, the officer discovered that the individual was breaking state open-container laws and had an outstanding warrant. Id. at 397. An open-container violation and the discovery of an outstanding warrant might, under some circumstances, count as intervening events. But the Sixth Circuit held that they did not break the chain of causation because the officer would never have been in a position to discover the new violations without first performing an illegal stop. Id. at 405 (reasoning that the defendant’s detention was not justified by the open-container citation because the detention was “actually a continuation of the illegal seizure”). The same analysis applies here: Trooper Hutti’s ability to observe the seat-belt violation was cl 3 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Pearce, 531 F.3d 374, 382 n.
holding a defendants confession admissible despite the fact that his arrest was unlawful because he confessed upon voluntarily returning to the police station several days after being lawfully arraigned and released on personal recognizance holding that appellants complaint on appeal that the environment was coercive did not change the fact that he was not in custody when he voluntarily went to the police station was told several times he could leave and did leave after the interrogation holding that the district courts finding that an allegedly coercive threat did not specifically motivate the defendants confession where 1 there was no evidence that the threat was repeated at the police station 2 defendant offered no admissible evidence that the threat was the crucial factor motivating his confession and 3 he confessed immediately after the officer threatened to administer a gun residue test as opposed to confessing immediately after the allegedly coercive threat was made thus the gunresidue test was just as plausible a motivating factor for the confession as was the threat holding that later declarations during defendants confession leading officers to evidence of the crime constituted part of one continuous confession that began at the police station holding that the fact that police falsely told defendant that his companion had confessed to the crime under investigation though relevant was insufficient to render otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible