Court Opinion

ID: 9761268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:36:50.887198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:21.604041
License: Public Domain

McDERMOTT, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the result reached by the majority. Any departure from a rigid application of the six-hour rule of Davenport1 is a step in the right direction. However, to the extent that our judicial inquiry continues to be focused on the time of arraignment, rather than on the integrity of statements, that focus remains misdirected. This Court should remove its focus from six hours, or what does or does not comprise a permissible exception, or what circumstance is sufficiently exigent; the inquiry should instead center on whether an incriminating statement was obtained coercively. The Davenport rule severely undermines the truth-determining process, and results in the exclusion of constitutionally permissible statements. Since involuntary and coerced statements, and statements obtained in derogation of the rule of Miranda2 are inadmissible in any case, only those who have given constitutionally sound statements stand to reap any benefit from rigid, prophylactic exclusionary rules pertaining to pre-arraignment delay.
I reiterate the thoughts expressed in Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 500 Pa. 144, 454 A.2d 1004 (1982) and Commonwealth v. Bennett, 498 Pa. 656, 450 A.2d 970 (1982):
Although I agree with the result reached by the majority today, I write separately to delineate my position to this Court’s continued reliance on Commonwealth v. Davenport, 471 Pa. 278, 370 A.2d 301 (1977).
I repeat the view of the six hour rule as stated in Commonwealth v. Bennett, 498 Pa. 656, 450 A.2d 970 (1982) (McDermott, J., concurring).
*465A prophylactic rule, such as the six hour rule, is a classic of technicality. Classic because it applies to all circumstances, no matter what distinctions of justice may inhere in the facts of a given case. 498 Pa. at 660, 450 A.2d 970 at 972.
We must therefore discard Davenport and return to a more flexible approach. This will enable our courts to suppress statements where they were obtained through coercion rather than watch the clocks and count the hours.
Jenkins, supra, 500 Pa. at 152, 454 A.2d at 1008.

. Commonwealth v. Davenport, 471 Pa. 278, 370 A.2d 301 (1977).

. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).