Document: 396 U.S. 102 90 S.Ct. 291 24 L.Ed.2d 299 Melvin MORALES, Petitioner,v.STATE OF NEW YORK. No. 86. Argued Nov. 20, 1969. Decided Dec. 8, Richard T. Farrell, Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner. Burton B. Roberts, New York City, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 On October 4, 1964, a murder by stabbing took place in an elevator of apartment building where petitioner Morales' mother lived and Morales frequently visited. 13, his informed telephone that the police wished to talk with him; said he would come evening mother's business. This did. He was apprehended officers taken station, arriving at 8:30 p.m. Within 15 minutes had confessed crime 9:05 written signed statement. In response subsequent questioning officers, later repeated substance this confession. At trial, court held separate hearing on voluntariness confessions, found them voluntary, admitted over objection. convicted, jury apparently rejecting alibi defense time murder. The Appellate Division Supreme Court affirmed without opinion. People v. Morales, 27 A.D.2d 904, 280 N.Y.S.2d 520 (1967). Appeals, first raised Fourth Amendment issue, claiming there no probable cause detention confessions even if were inadmissible fruits illegal detention. State asserted issue not been decided below hence opportunity make record relevant facts; moreover, claimed voluntarily surrendered himself any event voluntary result independent choice such legality irrelevant admissibility confessions. 2 Appeals affirmed, accepting discussion trial court's finding as 22 N.Y.2d 55, 290 898, 238 N.E.2d 307 (1968). dealt rejected claim ground arrest but rather conduct involved reasonable under circumstances case. Although free leave have restrained attempted flee, stated formal law refused answer questions station (where entitled lawyer desired one) leave. authority brief custodial interrogation 'those persons reasonably suspected possessing knowledge investigation involving crimes presenting high degree public concern affecting safety.' 65, 907, 314. We granted certiorari, 394 972, 89 1472, 752 (1969). 3 After considering full record, we do disturb determination court, appellate courts, given. occurred prior Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966), totality surrounding shows coerced. 4 should not, however, decide before us whether conviction otherwise be affirmed. ruling below, may detain less than traditional arrest, is manifestly important, goes beyond our decisions Terry Ohio, 392 1, 88 1868, 20 889 (1968), Sibron York, 40, 1889, 1912, 917 odds Davis Mississippi, 721, 1394, 676 But concluded after parties' briefs oral argument merit State's position does permit satisfactory evaluation facts apprehension Morales. A lengthy question basis appear fully explored since challenge lawfulness until case came Appeals. '(i)t conceded apprehending detectives did justify defendant they him into custody,' N.Y.2d, 58, N.Y.S.2d, 902, N.E.2d, 310, '(t)he checkerboard square investigation, although resting upon circumstantial evidence, pointed only defendant. * fact, person could detained based instant record.' 64, 313. 5 Given develop evidentiary leading able show or confrontation undertaken product event, absence squarely necessarily presents illuminates factual context which arises, choose grapple full-fledged arrest. 6 accordingly vacate judgment remand further proceedings inconsistent 7 It so ordered. 8 Judgment vacated remanded. 9 Mr. Justice BLACK dissents affirm.

Category: 0