Case Name: Commonwealth v. Richman, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1974-05-22
Citations: 458 Pa. 167
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 471
Parties: Commonwealth v. Richman, Appellant.
Judges: Before Jones, C. J., Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 458
Pages: 167–188

Head Matter:
Commonwealth v. Richman, Appellant.
Argued January 17, 1973.
Before Jones, C. J., Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ.
reargument refused February 3,1975.
Kenneth Mvrsky, Assistant Defender, with him J onathan Miller, Assistant Defender, and Vincent J. Ziccardi, Defender, for appellant.
Milton M. Stein, Assistant District Attorney, with him James J. Wilson and James T. Ramiey, Assistant District Attorneys, Bichard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
May 22, 1974:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Nix,
Appellant Leroy Eichman was tried by a judge sitting without a jury and found guilty on charges of burglary and rape. After post-trial motions were denied, he was sentenced to from two to five years. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, per curiam. We granted allocatur limited to the issue whether there was a constitutional right to counsel at a pre-indictment lineup, and if so, whether that right was intelligently waived in this case.
Appellant was arrested at 9:30 A.M. on May 6th and taken to the 9th District Central Detective Division, lie signed a written waiver of counsel, and at about 2:00 P.M. he was placed in a six-man lineup where the complaining witness identified him as her assailant. At trial, the complaining witness testified that on May 1, 1970, the appellant entered her apartment and forced her to submit to intercourse by threatening her with a knife. An in-court identification was made without reference to the lineup during the prosecution's casein-chief.
Appellant now contends that he had a right to counsel at the lineup, that he did not waive that right, and that the in-court identification was tainted by the uncounseled lineup.
The United States Supreme Court first recognized a suspect's right to counsel at a pretrial lineup in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967). The policy behind the prophylactic exclusion of uncounseled lineups was explained as follows: "Since it appears that there is grave potential for prejudice, intentional or not, in the pretrial lineup, which may not be capable of reconstruction at trial, and since presence of counsel itself can often avert prejudice and assure a meaningful confrontation at trial, there can be little doubt that for Wade the post-indictment lineup was a critical stage of the prosecution at which he was 'as much entitled to such aid [of counsel] . as at the trial itself.' Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 57 (1932)." (Footnote omitted). 388 U.S. 236-7. While Wade's indictment preceded his lineup, the indictment also preceded the arrest, and the Court's opinion did not specify precisely when the right to counsel attaches.
Five years later, a plurality of the Supreme Court of the United States in Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972) declined ta apply Wade to lineups occurring "before the commencement of any prosecution whatever." 406 U.S. at 690. The decision in Kwby does not suggest that the rationale which spawned Wade is inapplicable to such lineups. Rather, Kirby was concerned with striking "the appropriate constitutional balance between the right of a suspect to be protected from prejudicial procedures and the interest of society in the prompt and purposeful investigation of an unsolved crime." 406 U.S. at 691.
In attempting to reach this balance, the plurality noted: "The initiation of judicial criminal proceedings is far from a mere formalism. It is the starting point of our whole system of adversary criminal justice. For it is only then that the Government has committed itself to prosecute, and only then that the adverse positions of Government and defendant have solidified. It is then that a defendant finds himself faced with the prosecutorial forces of organized society, and immersed in the intricacies of substantive and procedural criminal law. It is this point, therefore, that marks the commencement of the 'criminal prosecutions' to which alone the explicit guarantees of the Sixth Amendment are applicable." (Footnote omitted) 406 U.S. at 689-690. Therefore, they held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies only to lineups conducted "at or after the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings — whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment." 406 U.S. at 689.
Kirby does not establish an all inclusive rule; rather, the line to be drawn depends upon the procedure employed by each state. We are therefore faced with the issue of whether this lineup preceded the "initiation of adversary judicial proceedings" as defined in Pennsylvania. While the plurality in Kirby attaches some significance to the indictment, they specifically mention several benchmarks: "formal charges, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment." 406 U.S. at 689. We are convinced that it would be artificial to attach conclusionary significance to the indictment in Pennsylvania. Rather, we hold that Commonwealth v. Whiting, 439 Pa. 205, 266 A.2d 738 (1970), appropriately draws the line for determining the initiation of judicial proceedings in Pennsylvania at the arrest.
As we noted in Whiting, the policy behind the Wade rule applies with equal force to all confrontations conducted after arrest. Kirby only instructs us to limit that rule where the limitation would benefit the interest of society in the prompt and purposeful investigation of an unsolved crime. In light of Pennsylvania's procedure, we find no countervailing benefit where the lineup occurs after arrest.
In reaching that conclusion, we note that the approval by a magistrate of a written complaint is at least as significant as the indictment in determining the commencement of adversary proceedings and the strength of the government's commitment to prosecute. See, United States ex rel. Robinson v. Zelker, 468 F.2d 159, 163 (2d Cir. 1972):
"Here the arrest warrant itself commanded that appellant be brought forthwith before the Criminal Court 'to answer the said charge, and to be dealt with according to law.' These were formal criminal proceedings, for the warrant had been signed by a judge based on an 'information upon oath' that appellant did commit the crimes of assault, robbery and possession of a dangerous weapon. This being true, Wade required counsel at the show-up". In Pennsylvania, magisterial approval of a complaint occurs either at the issuance of an arrest warrant, or, for warrantless arrests, at the preliminary arraignment. See, Pa. R. Crim. P. 130. The reasoning of Robinson would clearly apply to both situations.
The case at bar, however, concerns a lineup conducted after a warrantless arrest and before the preliminary arraignment. Having determined that Wade protection must be provided subsequent to an arrest on a warrant, we must decide whether to distinguish arrests conducted without a warrant. We decline to do so for two reasons.
First, a warrantless arrest is justified only in the face of compelling exigent circumstances which pre elude the police from going before a detached magistrate. See generally, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 479 (1963). Such exceptions do not remove the necessity of probable cause, they merely place the determination of probable cause in the hands of the police. While events may demand a procedural departure from the general requirement of a detached magistrate we must emphatically reject any attempt to use such exigent circumstances to create substantive benefits for arrests conducted without warrants. To allow uncounseled lineups between warrantless arrests and preliminary arraignment would only encourage abuse of the exigent circumstances exception and undercut our strong policy requiring warrants whenever feasible.
Equally as significant is the policy behind Rule 130, supra, requiring that the suspect "shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the proper issuing authority where a complaint shall be filed against him." Under that Rule, filing of such a complaint must follow a warrantless arrest without unnecessary delay, and, as we have interpreted that phrase, only delays for routine police procedures — booking, fingerprinting, photographing, and the recognized administrative procedures are permissible. Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389, 290 A.2d 417 (1972). See also, Commonwealth v. Dixon, 454 Pa. 444, 311 A.2d 613 (1973); Commonwealth v. Wayman, 454 Pa. 79, 309 A.2d 784 (1973); Commonwealth v. Dutton, 453 Pa. 547, 307 A.2d 238 (1973); and Commonwealth v. Tingle, 451 Pa. 241, 301 A.2d 701 (1973). Thus, we see no basis for distinguishing arrests with warrants and arrests without warrants for purposes of Kirby. In the former cases, the complaint will have already been filed, and in the latter, the complaint must be filed without "unnecessary delay" as we have defined the term.
The Commonwealth admits that its evidence against appellant prior to the lineup was sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest him, but it argues that it was "fairer" to conduct the lineup before giving him a preliminary arraignment. We cannot agree. After the arraignment, a lineup could have been conducted without encroaching on the principles of Rule 130 or the right to counsel enunciated in Wade. To draw a distinction between arrests with and without warrants would encourage police to ignore the mandate of Rule 130 and would not aid any legitimate police interest in facilitating the investigation of crime. We therefore do not feel that either the "committed to prosecution" standard or the "balance" mentioned in Kirby justify such a distinction. Since appellant was effectively under arrest at the time of this lineup, Wade and Kirby require that he be given a right to counsel at that time.
The Commonwealth argues that even if appellant had a right to counsel at the lineup, his oral and written declarations establish that he waived that right. Appellant counters by asserting that such waiver was made without knowledge of the crime under investigation and was therefore not knowing and intelligent.
This Court has dealt with similar challenges to waivers of the right to counsel under Miranda on several occasions. See, Commonwealth v. McKinney, 453 Pa. 10, 306 A.2d 305 (1973); Commonwealth v. McIn tyre, 451 Pa. 42, 301 A.2d 832 (1973); Commonwealth v. Swint, 451 Pa. 54, 296 A.2d 777 (1972); Commonwealth v. Boykin, 450 Pa. 25, 298 A.2d 258 (1972); Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 445 Pa. 364, 284 A.2d 717 (1971); Commonwealth v. Cooper, 444 Pa. 122, 278 A.2d 895 (1971). In each, of these cases, we alluded to the decision of three members of this Court in Commonwealth v. Collins, 436 Pa. 114, 121, 259 A.2d 160 (1969) which held that "an intelligent and understanding waiver of the right to counsel is impossible where the defendant has not been informed of the crime which is being investigated." However, in each case we determined that the suspect had been adequately informed of the general nature of the charges against him. These cases teach that while there is no need for the police to explain in detail all of the technicalities of the charges at issue, the accused in order to make a valid waiver of the right to counsel should at least know the general nature of the transaction giving rise to the charges.
In view of the lack of prejudice to legitimate law enforcement, and the obvious advantage to the accused in having this information, we would apply the above rule to waivers of lineup counsel as well as to Miranda waivers. Here the investigating detective admitted that he neither informed appellant of the charge against him or of the purpose of the lineup. A waiver under such circumstances is not knowing and intelligent.
Finally, the Commonwealth urges us to find that the in-court identification at issue here was not tainted by this illegal lineup. While testimony during the suppression hearing suggests strongly that there may have been an independent basis for the in-court identification, the hearing court, having concluded that the lineup procedure was not tainted, did not make a specific finding on this issue. See, United States v. Wade, supra at 240; Commonwealth v. Futch, supra at 396. We therefore, remand the record to the lower court for a resolution of this issue.
The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Mr. Justice O'Brien, Mr. Justice Roberts and Mr. Justice Manderino join in this opinion.
Justice Stewart's opinion was joined by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Rehnquist. Justice Powell, whose vote was necessary for affirmance, stated only, "As I would not extend the Wade-Gilbert per ,se exclusionary rule, I concur in the result reached by the Court." 406 U.S. at 691.
In fact, the electors of this Commonwealth have recently authorized the abolition of the indicting grand jury.
Effective January 1, 1974 Pa. R. Crim. P. 118 was renumbered in pertinent part as Pa. R. Crim. P. 130.
Appellant does not contend that the lineup in this case was the product of an unnecessary delay and therefore improper under Rule 130 and Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389, 290 A.2d 417 (1972). We are not referring to Futeh for purposes of rendering the lineup invalid, but only to analyze whether appellant was entitled to counsel at the lineup.
Neither the United States Supreme Court decision in Wade nor our decision in Whiting have been interpreted to require counsel at prompt on-the-scene identifications. See, e.g., United States v. Sanchez, 422 F.2d 1198 (2d Cir. 1970); Russell v. United States, 408 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Commonwealth v. Turner, 454 Pa. 520, 314 A.2d 496 (1973). Our decision today should not be so interpreted.