This case is analogous to Crews because Crews was illegally arrested and thereafter the victim identified him in court. Crews asserted that the identification evidence should be excluded because, but for his illegal arrest, he would not have been in court and the victim would not have been in a position to identify him. The Court refused to suppress the evidence and stated that post-arrest statement was admissible despite illegal entry because it was not a product of the illegality and arrest was lawful.
The evidence obtained against appellant was not, under this Court's precedent, subject to suppression as it was unconnected to the alleged arrest that occurred at the police station. The police before any illegal act on their part knew appellant’s