Opinion ID: 1149417
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: admissibility of admissions to law enforcement officers; admissibility of clark's testimony as being fruit of an illegal arrest

Text: The major thrust of Bevill's complaint under this assignment is that the testimony of Clark was incompetent. Bevill contends he was sent to Parchman on a parole violation which resulted from information obtained following an illegal arrest and not having received the Miranda warning, and consequently the statements made to Clark were fruit of the poisoned tree. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S., 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319, 24 A.L.R. 1426 (1920); Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). We reject this argument for the reasons hereinbelow set forth. In this same assignment, however, Bevill also argues that the testimony of Barnett at trial was inadmissible for the same reason, that he received no Miranda warning. Here we must conclude reversible error was committed. When Bevill was brought to Tupelo by Monts, following questioning by Rickels he admitted to having been in the neighborhood of the Clayton residence on the night of July 31, that he had parked his truck at the Parkway Baptist Church, and that he was spying on Cowly. After informing the officers he was on probation, he also admitted to having drunk several beers that night, and driving while his driver's license was suspended. According to Rickels, based upon his admitting the probation violation, Bevill was kept in jail. The State makes no contention but that Bevill was entitled to a Miranda warning if he was under arrest, but contends that he was not under arrest. It is uncontradicted that Bevill was taken into custody by Monts, a constable and deputy sheriff of Pontotoc County, and told he had to go with the officer to Lee County, and that it was a very serious matter. Bevill was not allowed to drive his own truck. When left with the officials in Lee County, Bevill told them no more about his whereabouts on the night of July 31 than they had already been told, that he was in the area that night and at Cowly's house. Yet he was never released. It simply defies reason to assume any ordinary person under such circumstances, whether innocent or not, would not with good reason consider himself under arrest, and we must so hold. U.S. v. Bengivenga, 845 F.2d 593 (5th Cir.1988); U.S. v. Corral-Franco, 848 F.2d 536 (5th Cir.1988). Rickels may have assumed that Bevill was not under arrest when he questioned Bevill, but that is not the test. If he had any intention of questioning Bevill without first giving him the Miranda warning, it was incumbent upon him to have ascertained clearly from Monts that Bevill had not been taken into custody, and there was no reason for Bevill to believe he was in custody. Neither Rickels nor Barnett made any such inquiry of Monts. Bevill had good reason to consider himself under arrest, and Rickels was under a duty to give him the Miranda warnings before questioning him. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 726 (1966); Griffin v. State, 339 So.2d 550, 553 (Miss. 1976); White v. State, 290 So.2d 616, 619 (Miss. 1974); Smith v. State, 229 So.2d 551, 556 (Miss. 1969). In failing to do so, Bevill's statements to the officers should have been suppressed at the pre-trial hearing, and Barnett's testimony of his admissions should not have been admitted as a part of the State's case-in-chief. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743, 757 (Miss. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1098, 105 S.Ct. 607, 83 L.Ed.2d 716 (1984); Brunson v. State, 264 So.2d 817, 820 (Miss. 1972); Williams v. State, 220 So.2d 325, 328 (Miss. 1969). While the State clearly established by Cowly that Bevill had been at her home that night, we cannot hold Bevill's statements harmless error, because two of his witnesses, White and Cruise, testified he was in Pontotoc County, some 15-to-20 miles' distance, and either at the same time or very shortly before the time Cowly testified he was at her residence. Richardson v. Lucas, 741 F.2d 753, 756 (5th Cir.1984); Pinkney v. State, supra, 538 So.2d at 351; Carleton v. State, 425 So.2d 1036, 1041 (Miss. 1983). It should also be noted that while there was no Miranda warning given, there is nothing in this record to suggest that Bevill's admissions were not freely and voluntarily made. We do not hold them inadmissible evidence as impeachment. See: Powell v. State, 483 So.2d 363 (Miss. 1986); 14 A.L.R.4th 678, Impeachment of Credibility. It should also be noted that while Rickels may not have considered Bevill under arrest when he questioned him, the law enforcement officers at the time could very well have had sufficient information to bring him in for questioning. Cowly had notified the officers he was at her home disturbing her, the description given by Sadler and others of the person seen in the area, the pickup truck, and the photograph of Bevill, as well as his own description, furnished reasonable cause for taking him into custody for questioning. Alexander v. State, 503 So.2d 235, 239 (Miss. 1987); Moore v. State, 493 So.2d 1295, 1298 (Miss. 1986); Henry v. State, 486 So.2d 1209, 1212 (Miss. 1986); Riddles v. State, 471 So.2d 1234, 1236 (Miss. 1985); Powe v. State, 235 So.2d 920 (Miss. 1970). Boches v. State, 506 So.2d 254, 264 (Miss. 1987); Floyd v. State, 500 So.2d 989, 991 (Miss. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 816, 108 S.Ct. 68, 98 L.Ed.2d 32 (1987); Swanier v. State, 473 So.2d 180, 186 (Miss. 1985).