Opinion ID: 2322573
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Illegal Arrest

Text: Schmidt, Baurle and Thorton were arrested on a warrant issued by a Pittsburgh police magistrate. The warrant recited that appellant was wanted on a charge of suspicion of Felony, Murder and Burglary; it contained no information whereby the issuing magistrate might have concluded that probable cause existed. Seizing upon the inadequacies of this document, appellant urges that his arrest was illegal and that the confession which followed the arrest was within the scope of the taint, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963); Commonwealth v. Bishop, 425 Pa. 175, 228 A. 2d 661 (1967). It follows, appellant argues, that the confession must be suppressed, notwithstanding that its voluntariness has already been established by litigation in this Court. [6] As the Commonwealth points out, this argument was available to appellant prior to trial, was not raised in a pretrial motion as required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure, [7] and was not raised on direct appeal. It therefore concludes that the argument is waived within the meaning of section 4 of the PCHA. Appellant does not contest the premises of the Commonwealth's argument, but disputes the conclusion that the alleged error was waived.