Court Opinion

ID: 9450632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:53:30.286402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:23.764337
License: Public Domain

MOORE, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
Defendants were found under suspicious circumstances in a federal building where security was of vital importance. Since their presence was not satisfactorily explained, further investigation ensued. This was pursued by representatives of several governmental departments. Time was required. I disagree with the majority’s fact finding that Middleton was under arrest beginning at the latest at approximately 7:00 P.M. and that there was no need to attempt to develop further facts.
I do not think that appellate judges, enlightened by the outcome of the trial, should place themselves in the position of the investigator and prosecutor and decide with after-acquired wisdom when the investigatory stage shifts to the accusatory and when the facts are sufficiently developed to make an “ironclad, airtight case.” It would indeed be a bold, brash and inexperienced prosecutor or defense counsel who would make such a claim for his case — particularly upon threshold development of the facts.
As for the McNabb-Mallory question, arraignment was made at the earliest possible time — the next morning. However, after Middleton’s oral admissions at 9:00 and after the 10:00 order that he be arrested and lodged overnight, the interrogation continued. By that time there could be no purpose other than to elicit a full, formal confession, as was in fact *84done. The legitimate ends of reasonable investigation had already been served.
Therefore, upon any new trial, I would exclude the typewritten signed confession taken subsequent to 10:00 P.M. All other statements, including the hand-writings, were part of normal investigation required for the protection of the suspect as well as for the public. With respect to cases presenting different facts, I would reiterate the comments of Chief Judge Lumbard in his opinion in United States v. Vita, 294 F.2d 524, 532 (2d Cir. 1961):
“We cannot agree with the appellant that federal law enforcement officers are so rigidly confined by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a) that they must, immediately upon ‘arrest,’ cease all interrogation and formally charge the accused before a committing magistrate. Such an inflexible edict would paralyze the investigative process and eviscerate effective law enforcement.”