In Torres, No. PD-1322-04, the CCA appears to hold that an illegal arrest (i.e., one made without probable cause) can mean that all evidence which came to the knowledge of the investigating officer must be suppressed. It has been my understanding that such evidence must be the fruit of the arrest, i.e. be shown to have been obtained by exploitation of the unlawful seizure, before the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applied to it. This case also seems to encourage use of a boilerplate motion to gain suppression without any showing how acquisition of any particular evidence was unlawful. Even if the majority opinion is a correct application of Beck, they are overlooking the fact that all of the incriminating evidence was observed by Trooper Sulak apart from his decision to take Torres into custody. I guess the moral of Torres is that whoever observes the signs of intoxication should make the arrest.