Opinion ID: 1219920
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: C.R. 5 provides the following:

Text: I.C.R. 5. Initial appearance before the magistrate.  (a) IN GENERAL... . If a person is arrested without a warrant, he shall be brought before a magistrate, and a complaint shall be filed forthwith. When a person appears initially before a magistrate, the magistrate shall comply with the applicable subdivisions of this rule. ...... (d) INITIAL DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE. If the defendant was arrested without a warrant, the magistrate shall, after the complaint is laid before him, determine whether there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant has committed it... . (Emphasis added). The defendant was not taken forthwith before a magistrate after he was taken into custody at 3:00 a.m. Instead, he was alternately questioned or confined in a cell for the following sixteen hours, at which time he was then formally arrested. He was not presented before a magistrate then, either, but waited approximately another 40 hours before he was brought before a magistrate. Thus, I think it is clear that although the defendant had not been formally arrested before 7:00 p.m., December 2, he had been under arrest since 3:00 a.m. that morning, and under the terms of the statute and the rule he was entitled to be brought before a magistrate, whose duty under I.C.R. 5(d) would have been to determine whether there was probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime, and to advise the defendant of his rights and provide him with counsel to advise him concerning those rights. Furthermore, the defendant had a right under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to be brought before a judicial officer to determine whether there was probable cause to believe that he had committed an offense. This right was explained in the recent case of Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975). In that case, the Court began by discussing the standard for arrest. The standard for arrest is probable cause, defined in terms of facts and circumstances `sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the [suspect] had committed or was committing an offense.' Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 225, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964)... . This standard, like those for searches and seizures, represents a necessary accommodation between the individual's right to liberty and the State's duty to control crime. `... Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part... .' Brinegar v. United States, [338 U.S. 160] at 176, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1311 [93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949)]. To implement the Fourth Amendment's protection against unfounded invasions of liberty and privacy, the Court has required that the existence of probable cause be decided by a neutral and detached magistrate whenever possible. The classic statement of this principle appears in Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14, 68 S.Ct. 367, 369, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948): `... [The Fourth Amendment's] protection consists in requiring that [the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence] be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.' 420 U.S. at 111, 95 S.Ct. at 862. The Court recognized that police officers will often be confronted with ambiguous situations and that the Constitution permits them to arrest persons in such situations, i.e., that room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But, once the defendant is arrested, whether the officer has made a mistake or not, the Fourth Amendment requires that the defendant be taken before a magistrate. Furthermore, our rule and statute require that it be done and a complaint filed forthwith and without unnecessary delay. [A] policeman's on-the-scene assessment of probable cause provides legal justification for arresting a person suspected of crime, and for a brief period of detention to take the administrative steps incident to arrest. Once the suspect is in custody, however, the reasons that justify dispensing with the magistrate's neutral judgment evaporate. There no longer is any danger that the suspect will escape or commit further crimes while the police submit their evidence to a magistrate. And, while the State's reasons for taking summary action subside, the suspect's need for a neutral determination of probable cause increases significantly. The consequences of prolonged detention may be more serious than the interference occasioned by arrest. .. . When the stakes are this high, the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate is essential if the Fourth Amendment is to furnish meaningful protection from unfounded interference with liberty. Accordingly, we hold that the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint on liberty following arrest.  420 U.S. at 113, 95 S.Ct. at 863 (emphasis added). Thus, while the police officers were certainly justified in taking the defendant into custody, the defendant's prolonged detention without being brought before a magistrate was a violation of his rights under I.C.R. 5, I.C. § 19-615, and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The majority opinion recognizes this violation and scolds the police for failure to comply with I.C. § 19-615 and I.C.R. rule 5(a). The question then which we must decide is: what is the appropriate remedy? The Supreme Court of the United States did not answer this question in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54. The majority in this case proposes the following as the answer to this question: A majority of states have rejected a per se application of the federal `McNabb-Mallory' rule which would render inadmissible a confession or statement obtained from an accused during an unlawful detention  unlawful because he was not brought before a magistrate `without unnecessary delay'  even though the statement was voluntarily given. Instead, such delay is merely regarded as a factor, to be considered with other circumstances, in determining whether the statement was involuntary and therefore inadmissible under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We find this to be the more well-reasoned approach. 97 Idaho at 491, 547 P.2d at 536 (footnotes omitted). By stating that delay is ... a factor, to be considered ... in determining whether the statement was involuntary, the majority has confused the interests sought to be protected by the requirement of I.C.R. 5 and of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that an arrestee must be presented before a magistrate forthwith or without unnecessary delay. The purpose of I.C.R. 5 and of the Fourth Amendment is to prevent an arrestee from being held in an extended illegal confinement by determining whether there is probable cause to believe that the arrestee has committed an offense. The arrestee's constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to a probable cause hearing following a warrantless arrest cannot be protected if the admissibility of statements the arrestee has given during the illegal confinement which are a product of the illegal confinement is tested solely against the Fifth Amendment's test of voluntariness. The United States Supreme Court, which we are required to follow, has chosen not to evaluate violations of Fourth Amendment rights purely on the basis of voluntariness. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975). By analyzing the admissibility of statements taken during an unlawful detention solely in terms of the arrestee's Fifth Amendment interests, the majority has failed to consider the critical questions before us. In footnote 8 to its opinion, the majority cites eight cases and an annotation to bolster its contention that a confession obtained from an accused during an unlawful detention is not necessarily inadmissible, but the delay is merely a factor to be considered in determining voluntariness and admissibility. All of the cases predate Gerstein v. Pugh . Four of these cases and the annotation predate the landmark Miranda decision, and all but one of these four also predate Mallory, so I do not believe that those older cases are of any precedential value. Neither do I believe that all of the more recent cases the majority has cited in that footnote stand for the majority's proposition. State v. Perez, 7 Ariz. App. 567, 442 P.2d 125 (1968), did not involve a statement given during an unlawful detention; it involved a statement given at the time of arrest and a claim that a subsequent alleged unlawful detention would make that statement inadmissible. Luttrell v. Freeman, 444 P.2d 857 (Okl.Cr. 1968), was a habeas corpus proceeding, not a criminal trial, and the admissibility of a confession taken during an alleged unlawful detention was not discussed in that opinion. In People v. Hosier, 525 P.2d 1161 (1974), the Supreme Court of Colorado held that the admission of a confession given by an arrestee who had not been taken before a magistrate without unnecessary delay was not grounds for reversal unless the arrestee could show he had been denied some basic constitutional right by reason of the failure to comply with the rule. 525 P.2d at 1164. Hosier predated Gerstein v. Pugh , which clearly states that prolonged deprivation of liberty without presentation before a magistrate for a probable cause determination is a violation of an arrestee's Fourth Amendment rights. Thus, the rationale for the Hosier decision has been undermined by Gerstein v. Pugh because Hosier was implicitly based in part upon a holding that prolonged detention without a probable cause determination by a magistrate is not a denial of a basic constitutional right. In People v. Weaver, 179 Colo. 331, 500 P.2d 980 (1972), the Supreme Court of Colorado held that a statement taken during an unnecessary delay was not inadmissible if the record also shows, as it does here, that there was no studied attempt to avoid taking the defendant before a county judge. 500 P.2d at 982. While I do not believe such a rule can survive in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Gerstein v. Pugh , even if this were the proper rule to be applied, it cannot be said upon this record that there was no studied attempt to avoid taking the defendant before a magistrate, because those who sought to contact the defendant that morning to obtain his release were apparently rebuffed, and the defendant was not taken before a magistrate until Monday morning, December 4, over two days after his arrest. Therefore, Weaver is inapposite to this case. Furthermore, both Hosier and Weaver were also based upon the premise that compliance with the requirements of Miranda would render an ensuing admission or confession admissible, i.e., that the Miranda warnings given to protect a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights would also protect his Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful arrest or unlawful restraint of his liberty. That was the basis upon which the majority of this Court wrote its original opinion in this case which it withdrew after rehearing, apparently recognizing that the rationale of the Hosier and Weaver cases was incorrect in view of the recent decision of Brown v. Illinois, supra . In Brown the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Miranda warnings were not a cure-all which made statements taken following an illegal arrest admissible into evidence. In Brown, the Supreme Court of the United States characterized the lower court holding in the following manner: The court, in other words, appears to have held that the Miranda warnings in and of themselves broke the causal chain so that any subsequent statement, even one induced by the continuing effects of unconstitutional custody, was admissible so long as, in the traditional sense, it was voluntary and not coerced in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 422 U.S. at 597, 95 S.Ct. at 2258. The Court then went on to hold that a confession or statement obtained by the exploitation of an illegal arrest is not admissible merely because it follows a Miranda warning and a waiver of Miranda rights. [T]he Miranda warnings, alone and per se, cannot always make the act sufficiently a product of free will to break, for Fourth Amendment purposes, the causal connection between the illegality and the confession. They cannot assure in every case that the Fourth Amendment violation has not been unduly exploited... . While we therefore reject the per se rule which the Illinois courts appear to have accepted, we also decline to adopt any alternative per se or `but for' rule... . The Miranda warnings are an important factor, to be sure, in determining whether the confession is obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest. But they are not the only factor to be considered. The temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances, ... and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct are all relevant... . The voluntariness of the statement is a threshold requirement... . And the burden of showing admissibility rests, of course, on the prosecution. 422 U.S. at 603-04, 95 S.Ct. at 2261-62 (footnotes omitted). I believe the same rule should be applicable during an extended confinement following an arrest without a warrant whenever the arrestee has not been brought before a magistrate without unnecessary delay and would adopt the holding of Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389, 290 A.2d 417 (1972), a case cited by the majority in its footnote 8 for the proposition that unreasonable delay is a factor to be considered in the admissibility of a statement or a confession, but which said the following: We have held that failure to comply with [the rule providing that one arrested without a warrant must be taken without unnecessary delay before a judicial officer] does not ipso facto render inadmissible evidence obtained by the police during the `unnecessary delay' and that it is incumbent upon defendant to show some prejudice from the delay.... While this Court has never articulated precisely what constitutes `prejudice' in the context of `unnecessary delay' proscribed by [the rule], we think it appropriate to follow the federal approach and exclude all evidence obtained during `unnecessary delay' except that which ... has no reasonable relationship to the delay whatsoever. 290 A.2d at 419. While the written statement which the officers took at approximately 7:30 a.m. on Saturday could arguably not be characterized as the result of unnecessary delay, those tape recorded statements which were made between 11:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. in the afternoon were certainly made in violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights and his rights under the Idaho statute and rule to be taken before a magistrate without unreasonable delay and should have been held to be inadmissible for a violation of both the Fourth Amendment and the Idaho statute and rule. The voluntariness of the confessions. The majority concludes that the defendant's statements were admissible by the following reasoning: The record indicates none of the `third degree' tactics that are the target of the `McNabb-Mallory' rule were used by the police. Certainly no lengthy interrogations took place. Appellant was questioned for less than an hour from the time he was taken to the police station until the time of the polygraph test. Also during this interim the appellant was given, as he requested, time to lie down and rest. The polygraph test was administered by Bud Mason, who was not associated with the Garden City Police Force, but rather was a polygraphist for the state. The test did not take place at the police station but in Mason's office in the Derr Building. Only one officer was present at the time the statements were taken, and no police officers were present during the administration of the polygraph tests. While the entire examination lasted approximately four hours, it was not continuous in that breaks were allowed. It is this Court's opinion that appellant failed to show the coercion and involuntariness needed to justify the exclusion of the exhibits. 97 Idaho at 492, 547 P.2d at 537. I cannot agree that no lengthy interrogations took place. The defendant was regularly interrogated from 5:00 a.m. Saturday morning to 4:30 p.m. Saturday afternoon. He had not eaten or slept for nearly twenty hours before questioning began, and did not eat or sleep during the next twelve hours over which he was interrogated. The record indicates that he was bereaved at the loss of June Diggs, an intimate friend for five years. He had consumed five beers and three or four shots of whiskey on an empty stomach prior to the shooting. The appellant was in no condition to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights and could easily be intimidated in such a situation. Assuming for the sake of argument that his statements had not been taken in derogation of his rights to be brought before a magistrate without unnecessary delay, nevertheless I think it is clear as a matter of law that the defendant did not give his statements after a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights. I believe the case of Commonwealth v. Eiland, 450 Pa. 566, 301 A.2d 651 (1973), which the majority has cited in footnote 9 of its opinion, points to the result which we should reach in this case. [T]his Court has emphasized that when `[t]he questions in the voluntariness area have passed beyond the physical coercion stage to the much more difficult area of psychological coercion ... a close analysis of all the surrounding circumstances is necessary,' Commonwealth ex rel. Butler v. Rundle, [429 Pa. 141, 239 A.2d 426 (1968)], and that `the test for any involuntary confession, must concern itself with those elements impinging upon a defendant's will.' Commonwealth v. Baity, 428 Pa. 306, 315 n. 7, 237 A.2d 172, 177 n. 7 (1968). Thus in the instant case we must weigh all the factors influencing appellant's will at the time he made his statement. The record evinces uncontradicted evidence that appellant, a 20-year-old with a tenth grade education, was isolated for several periods of time; that upon his initial interrogation he refused to admit involvement in the shooting; that eleven hours later when told by the police he would get more lenient treatment if he confessed, he signed an incriminating statement; and that he was not arraigned until some twenty-five hours after arrest. The combination of all these factors based on the Commonwealth's uncontradicted evidence constituted a subtle but nonetheless powerful form of impermissible psychological coercion... . We conclude that appellant's signed statement was involuntary and should therefore have been suppressed. 301 A.2d at 654-655. The reasoning of the Pennsylvania Court is applicable in this case. At the time of his arrest the defendant was bereaved and possibly in a state of intoxication; he was questioned and refused to admit any connection with the shooting; he was then told that his first story was a lie and that the truth was wanted; he was then intermittently questioned over a ten hour period during which time he had gone without food or sleep for up to thirty hours. The defendant was not a habitual arrestee familiar with the techniques of questioning and knowledgeable of his rights. Given all these factors, the circumstances were inherently coercing, and his waiver was not knowing and intelligent. Accordingly, I would hold that his written statements and the tape recorded oral statements were inadmissible. For all of these reasons I would remand for a new trial. McQUADE, C.J., concurs.