Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/43

 (R. 66). This shows that the officer was distinguishing between a search and voluntary delivery. There is accordingly no basis in this record for a challenge to the arrest of Yee or the receipt of the narcotics.

Moreover, Yee's designation of Wong Sun as one of the suppliers of narcotics (the other being Toy) was not made at the time the officers were in Yee's home, but later, in the office of the Bureau of Narcotics. As we discuss generally infra, this voluntary statement, made after a period for reflection, represents an intervening independent act of volition which would not be tainted even if Yee's arrest were illegal. Yee's statement was accordingly a factor on which the officers could properly rely as one of the circumstances giving them probable cause to arrest Wong Sun.

2. It is without significance that the record does not show any prior acquaintance of the officers with Yee. His accusation of "Sea Dog" and Toy as the suppliers of the narcotics was significantly corroborated before the officers arrested Wong Sun on the morning of June 4. First, of course, Yee was not speaking without corroboration—his statement that he had been furnished heroin was substantiated by his actual possession. His statement that Toy had been one of the two who furnished the heroin was substantiated by Toy's similarly detailed knowledge of Yee's possession of the narcotics, as revealed in Toy's earlier statement to the officers. Yee's tie-in of "Sea