49
trying to use the glassine envelope as a cover-up, and that, instead of characterizing his behavior as an admission, it was far more plausible to interpret it as an attempt to ingratiate so as to convince the agents that he was only a "small time user" and might well be released in exchange for a bribe. So here, petitioner Toy tried to divert the agents by sending them to Yee. The propelling force behind the discovery of the narcotics at Yee's house was Toy's own act in sending the agents to Yee. Since it was Toy's deliberate and voluntary act which caused the officers to go to see Yee, the evidence recovered from Yee should be deemed to be Toy's independent responsibility, not the product of illegal government action in entering Toy's house.
5. Petitioners seek to invalidate not only Toy's statement at the laundry, but Yee's voluntary delivery of the narcotics and his unanticipated and independent statement in which he implicated Toy as well as Wong Sun, and even the later, disconnected, full confessions of Toy and Wong Sun, made after an interval of 5 days (after arraignment).
As pointed out supra (pp. 36-37), nothing with respect to Yee's surrender of the narcotics or accusation of Wong Sun and Toy involved any unlawful conduct of the officers. No search was made, and Yee's designation of Wong Sun and Toy as the persons who brought the narcotics to Yee's house was voluntarily made at a later time. He did not make this accusation on the spur of the moment when he delivered the narcotics to the officers at his house, but subsequently at the office of the Bureau of Narcotics,
