Opinion ID: 1593087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to bring defendant promptly before a magistrate.

Text: Defendant asserts that he was denied due process of law because he was not promptly brought before a magistrate (arrested at 10 p. m. on March 23, 1970, and taken before a magistrate at 4:15 p. m. on March 24, 1970). Defendant relies on the McNabb-Mallory [1] rule as applied by this court in Phillips v. State. [2] In the first place it should be noted that the McNabb-Mallory rule does not go to due process of law. Rather, as noted in Phillips: . . . The McNabb-Mallory rule is basically an exclusionary rule not based upon any constitutional right of the accused . . . . The rule rests upon the supreme court's superintending authority over the administration of federal criminal justice. . . . [3] In Phillips, while pointing out that McNabb-Mallory does not apply to the states through the fourteenth amendment, this court concluded that: . . . A detention for a period longer than is reasonably necessary for such limited purpose violates due process and renders inadmissible any confession obtained during the unreasonable period of the detention. [4] Accordingly, it is clear that even when the detention is unreasonably long the remedy is to exclude any statement during the period of detention. Here, the statement made by defendant was excluded because the in-custody interrogation did not meet the Miranda [5] requirements. Thus, even if this court were to conclude that the detention was unreasonable, the remedy to be afforded would be to exclude the statements already suppressed. Thus the issue raised by defendant relative to the period of detention before being brought before a magistrate is moot. Additionally, defendant argues that the state's failure to bring him promptly before a magistrate invalidates the subsequent search of his residence. This court specifically rejected this assertion in Embry v. State, [6] in which case it was held that the McNabb-Mallory-Phillips rule has nothing to do with searches and seizures, but was concerned with statements made while in custody.