Legal Document

365 U.S. 762 81 Supreme Court Reporter 884 6 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 79 Frank R. COPPOLA, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Number 153. Argued March 27, 1961. Decided April 17, Mr. William baron Mahoney, Buffalo, N.Y., for petitioner. Howard Atlantic Heffron, Washington, D.C., respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 We brought this case here, 364 813, 51, 5 44, believing that it presented a question under Anderson versus States, 318 350, 63 599, 87 L.Ed. 829. After hearing oral argument and fully examining the transcript of proceedings in trial court, we conclude particular facts are not ruled by Anderson. find no merit other advanced 2 Affirmed. 3 Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. 4 Petitioner has been convicted participating two different bank robberies violation 18 Code KF62 § 2113, Annotated KF65 U5 2113. In each petitioner's confession obtained agents F.B.I. were admitted against him. These confessions made during an interrogation taking place Buffalo police headquarters while petitioner was detention local police. stranger to One charged occurred February 1956, October year. The had first come into contact with when, at their request, he re-enacted events robbery before audience its victims. Apparently nothing came investigation. Then—almost year later—the possession information involved unrelated state crime. This relayed put motion which led detention, his interrogation, being these federal crimes. He arrested on charge law about 9:30 morning. police, who him, interrogated him day. But they attempt have prompt commitment required New York law.1 informed arrest noon day arrest. At nine evening received permission interrogate as involvement robberies. From until almost one o'clock morning next day, carried officials left them alone 'as matter courtesy.' It period confessed participation both officers officially 'requested custody' petitioner, so could be arraigned charges. There some delay given 'custody,' see Shortly after afternoon charges City Court. four afternoon, 19 hours commenced court. much attention focused, progress case, whether 'working arrangement' (see 356, 602) effected. my view, activity is proscribed without regard there was, or not, pre-existing arrangement.' 7 would inadmissible now us if original officers. For duty officer making take person 'without unnecessary delay' judicial compliance Rule 5(a), Fed.Rules Crim.Proc., Here detained 29 seeing any sort; visitation effort arraign accused time. took steps do themselves; nor did insist make arraignment judge law. also showing magistrates unavailable.2 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions think plain therefore 19-hour 'unnecessary within meaning 5(a). 8 Arrest, resulting serves, Federal Rules, purpose assuring person, probable grounds crime, will amenable orders competent include terms 5(b) right counsel bail. administrative step preliminary secret interrogation. Mallory 354 449, 454, 77 1356, 1359, 1479, said 'is taken order carry out process inquiry * *.' 2:30 p.m. questioning began By 10 confessed, time tried, success, reach magistrate. Between 11:30 midnight, dictated typist; 9 only reason forward result 'police headquarters' wrongful 'process inquiry' belonged rather than Government. Government contends supra, 602, 'formally guilty illegal conduct.' device too transparent. can avoid impact rules advantage arranged 5(a) formality; minimize persons detention; ultimate aim those situations grows whole system 'third degree.' evil rule aims arraignment. Its means delay.' Here, kind aimed. fact cell station jail prison accentuates evasion Rule. used occasion What cannot precincts jail. today permit flout long let stay hearts' content. N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. 165. See People Lovello, N.Y.2d 436, 438, 154 N.Y.S.2d 8, 136 North Eastern Reporter, 2nd 483, whose authority concedes illegality suggestion magistrate available five afternoon. Cf. available.

Classification Label: 0