Court Opinion

ID: 9703140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:42:10.297714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:45.985474
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge,
dissenting:
This appeal involves the appellant’s contention that the suppression court erred in admitting a statement made by appellant following a warning pursuant to Section 10-110 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. I agree and respectfully dissent. On the basis of the improper admission of appellant’s statement I would vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial.
Although the majority essentially recaps the facts, I repeat them here, with some enlargement in pertinent regards. At or about 6:30 p. m. on July 5, 1977, appellant’s sister, Marva Crafton, was assaulted in the vicinity of her residence by Joseph Smith.1 Following the assault Miss Crafton phoned appellant, an off-duty policeman, and informed him of the attack. Appellant went directly to his sister’s house where he found her bruised and disquieted.
Mr. Smith returned at approximately 7:45 p. m. while appellant was still at his sister’s house. As Miss Crafton *387watched Mr. Smith approach the house, she told appellant that he was armed. Appellant hid behind the door holding his baton and gun as Mr. Smith, who in fact was unarmed, entered the house. Mr. Smith was shot and struck with the baton during the ensuing struggle. Mr. Smith fled the scene and drove himself to a hospital for emergency care.
Soon thereafter, appellant notified the police department of the incident. Captain Murray, the investigating officer, arrived at the scene at approximately 10:00 p. m. From his preliminary investigation he learned that Miss Crafton had been attacked by an individual who was subsequently shot by appellant. Shortly after 11:00 p. m., Captain Murray ordered Officer Thomas to go to the Police Administration Building to give a statement. (N.T. Suppression Hearing 13- 14, 30). At this time Officer Thomas was not suspected of any criminal activity, however his statement was considered necessary to the investigation because of his known involvement in the incident. (N.T. Suppression Hearing 14- 17, 27-8). Captain Murray, therefore, denied repeated requests by Officer Thomas to postpone giving a statement, and told him that as a police officer, he was required to comply with the order under Section 10-110 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. (N.T. Suppression Hearing 14-17, 27-8).2 Under this provision, had Officer Thomas failed to *388comply with the order, he would have lost his job and been ineligible for future city service employment.3
Subsequent to giving the Section 10-110 order, Captain Murray received information indicating that appellant might have been criminally involved in the incident. At the station Captain Murray advised Officer Thomas’ attorney, Mr. Bernstein, of the possible criminal implications and further informed the attorney that he would like to take a statement from Officer Thomas. Officer Thomas conferred with Mr. Bernstein, who raised no objection to Captain Murray taking a statement. (N.T. Suppression Hearing 20-1). At approximately 1:45 a. m. Captain Murray advised appellant *389of his Miranda rights and, following an oral waiver of such rights, took his statement. (N.T. Suppression Hearing 24A). At no time, however, did Captain Murray withdraw his Section 10-110 order compelling Officer Thomas to give a statement. (N.T. Suppression Hearing 35-7). Appellant was permitted to leave the station and was arrested later that day.
It is our responsibility to determine if the record supports the factual findings of the trial court and to evaluate “the legitimacy of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings.” Commonwealth v. Thorpe, 270 Pa.Super. 221, 227, 411 A.2d 497, 500 (1979), quoting Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 460 Pa. 516, 521, 333 A.2d 892, 895 (1975). See also Commonwealth v. Patterson, 488 Pa. 227, 412 A.2d 481 (1980). Therefore, in determining the propriety of the trial court’s admission of appellant’s statement we can “ ‘consider only the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses and so much of the evidence for the defense as, fairly read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted.’ ” Commonwealth v. Brown, 473 Pa. 562, 566, 375 A.2d 1260, 1262 (1977), quoting Commonwealth v. Kichline, 468 Pa. 265, 280-81, 361 A.2d 282, 290 (1976). Commonwealth v. Williams, 484 Pa. 590, 400 A.2d 1258 (1979); Commonwealth v. Starks, 484 Pa. 399, 399 A.2d 353 (1979). Reading the record in this fashion, I cannot agree with the trial court’s conclusion that appellant’s waiver was voluntary.
It is axiomatic that a “[w]aiver of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination . . . must be a voluntary, knowing and intelligent decision.” Commonwealth v. Thomas, 258 Pa.Super. 332, 335, 392 A.2d 820, 821 (1978). See also Commonwealth v. Patterson, 488 Pa. 227, 412 A.2d 481 (1980); Commonwealth v. Simmons, 482 Pa. 496, 394 A.2d 431 (1978). The Commonwealth bears the burden of proving a valid waiver by a preponderance of the evidence, Commonwealth v. Kingsley, 480 Pa. 560, 391 A.2d 1027 (1978); Commonwealth v. Bullard, 465 Pa. 341, 350 A.2d 797 (1976); Commonwealth v. Fogan, 449 Pa. 552, 296 A.2d 755 (1972), *390and an effective waiver is a prerequisite to the admissibility of all statements, whether inculpatory or exculpatory. Commonwealth v. Smith, 465 Pa. 310, 350 A.2d 410 (1976); Commonwealth v. Bordner, 432 Pa. 405, 247 A.2d 612 (1968). Therefore, appellant’s statements are admissible only if his decision to waive his right to remain silent was the product of an independent and knowledgable choice. Commonwealth v. Kichline, 468 Pa. at 265, 361 A.2d at 282.
I find it apparent that Officer Thomas was not subjected to physical coercion. He reported to the station without police escort, and while at the station his freedom of movement was not restricted. He appeared calm and coherent when giving his statement and was subsequently permitted to leave the station. (N.T. Suppression Hearing 23, 25). Further, appellant was afforded his right to counsel. Appellant phoned Mr. Bernstein from the police department and had the opportunity to speak with him prior to making a statement. (N.T. Suppression Hearing 19-22, 31-32).
The psychological state of a defendant is also a factor in determining whether a waiver was voluntarily obtained. Commonwealth v. Bodge, 256 Pa.Super. 376, 389 A.2d 1172 (1978). Our supreme court “has emphasized that when ‘the questions in the voluntariness area have passed beyond the physical coercion stage to the much more difficult area of psychological coercion ... a close analysis of all the surrounding circumstances is necessary.’ ” Commonwealth v. Eiland, 450 Pa. 566, 574, 301 A.2d 651, 654 (1973), quoting Commonwealth ex rel. Butler v. Rundle, 429 Pa. 141, 149, 239 A.2d 426, 430 (1968). Therefore, in the instant case one must scrutinize all attending circumstances surrounding appellant’s waiver to determine whether it was the product of independent thought or psychological coercion.
It is the difficult area of psychological coercion that poses the problem in this appeal. The Section 10-110 order, under the facts now before us, places this case, in my opinion, somewhere between Commonwealth v. Triplett, 462 Pa. 244, 341 A.2d 62 (1975) relied upon by the appellant, and Commonwealth v. Kelly, 245 Pa.Super. 351, 369 A.2d 438 (1976) *391relied upon by the Commonwealth. In Triplett several Philadelphia police officers reported witnessing another officer, the appellant, larcenously remove several television sets. The appellant was later called before his supervisors for questioning. Prior to any interrogation he was given the following warning: “I wish to inform you that this is an official investigation, and under the provisions of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, Section 10-110, you are required to cooperate fully and answer all questions.” 462 Pa. at 246-47, 341 A.2d at 63. During this interrogation, appellant admitted his participation in the incident. Appellant was subsequently given Miranda warnings and again made certain admissions. Adopting the rationale enunciated in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967), the court held that statements compelled by Section 10-110 are inadmissible at a state criminal trial. 462 Pa. at 248, 341 A.2d at 64. The statements preceded by the Miranda warnings were held inadmissible since they were a product of the earlier constitutionally infirm statements.
In Kelly this court applied the Triplett rationale to the following circumstances. In a grand jury proceeding all of the witnesses were advised of their right against self-incrimination, and were told that if a Philadelphia employee chose to claim the privilege additional instructions would be given. Appellant, a police officer, claimed the privilege in response to two questions, but the Section 10-110 warning was never given. Appellant’s testimony was admitted as evidence in his subsequent perjury trial. In reaching our decision we emphasized that “[i]t is clear that statements made under threat of being discharged are the products of coercion and are therefore inadmissible at trial.” 245 Pa.Super. at 361, 369 A.2d at 443. However, we upheld the lower court’s opinion since the Section 10-110 warnings had not been given and appellant did exercise his right against self-incrimination. The case at bar is clearly distinguishable in that appellant was given the Section 10-110 warnings and did in fact waive his fifth amendment privilege.
*392The Commonwealth Court has also considered the impact of the Section 10-110 warning, and although the cases involve discharges from employment, these holdings are helpful in the present determination. In its most recent case the court held that a city fireman could not be fired for leaving a department inquiry in violation of Section 10-110. Strauss v. Civil Service Commission of Philadelphia, 40 Pa. Cmwlth. 560, 398 A.2d 1064 (1979).4 This holding was based on our supreme court’s determination that Section 10-110 of the Home Rule Charter is constitutionally defective to the extent it coerces a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination.
In DiCiacco v. Civil Service Commission of Philadelphia, 37 Pa.Cmwlth. 77, 389 A.2d 703 (1978), the Commonwealth Court noted the intrinsic contradiction between the Miranda and Charter Warnings. “[T]he employee is told that he has a right under Miranda to remain silent, to say nothing at all, but then is told that if he exercises this right, he will be discharged under Section 10-110.” 37 Pa.Cmwlth. at 87 n.6, 389 A.2d at 709 n.6.5 I agree that this conflict exists. An individual’s rights under Miranda must be jealously guarded. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). If the Charter warning coerces a waiver of Miranda rights the policy behind Miranda is circumvented unless all statements made as a result of this waiver are suppressed.
*393The landmark United States Supreme Court case addressing waivers coerced by economic sanctions is Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967). In Garrity, appellants were each warned prior to interrogation: “(1) that anything [they] said might be used against [them] in any state criminal proceeding: (2) that [they] had the privilege to refuse to answer if the disclosure would tend to incriminate [them]; but (3) that if [they] refused to answer [they] would be subject to removal from office.” 385 U.S. at 494, 87 S.Ct. at 617 (footnote omitted). No immunity was granted and some of the statements were used in subsequent prosecutions. The Court held that the fourteenth amendment extends to the individual the fifth amendment right to be protected against coerced statements, and therefore prohibits the use “in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained under threat of removal from office, and that it extends to all, whether they are policemen or other members of our body politic.” 385 U.S. at 500, 87 5. Ct. 620.6 The doctrine promulgated in Garrity and adopt*394ed by our supreme court in Triplett sets forth a strong denunciation of such methods of interrogation7 and, therefore, whenever this coercive scheme is present we must closely review the circumstances to assure that the privilege has not been abridged.
I conclude that appellant’s waiver was tainted by the prior Charter warning. If appellant’s statement had not been preceded by a waiver of his Miranda rights it would clearly have been suppressed as compelled by the Section 10-110 order, since his presence at the station and his subsequent statement were in response to the order. The policy behind the Charter warning, to use economic pressure to coerce a statement, is repugnant to that of the Miranda warnings. Where the Charter warning serves to psychologically coerce a waiver of Miranda rights the waiver clearly cannot be deemed voluntary. I would find that the period of two and a half to three hours between the Charter and Miranda warnings is not sufficient to purge the waiver of its taint where, as in the instant case, the Charter warning was never withdrawn, the Miranda warnings were given by the same officer who gave the Charter warning, and the appellant was under order given under Section 10-110 to be at the police station and to give a statement. On these grounds I would reverse the judgment of sentence and remand to the trial court for a new trial.

. Mr. Smith pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated assault, simple assault and recklessly endangering the life of another and received a one year’s probationary sentence.

. The following testimony is illustrative of these facts.
Q. [MR. FRANZEL]: Would you tell the Court what happened with respect to Officer Thomas coming down to the Police Administration Building?
A. [CAPTAIN MURRAY]: I told Thomas to come down to the Police Administration Building, and he asked me could he come down tomorrow ... and I said no, he could not.
Q. [MR. FRANZEL]: Why did you tell him he couldn’t come down the next day?
A. Because we were in the middle of an investigation, and we had to have answers. A policeman’s revolver was involved, and we had to, you know, find out what happened and why.
Q. What else transpired between yourself and Officer Thomas at that time?
A. Nothing. Officer Thomas again asked could he come down at a later date, and I told him no, he would have to come down and give his statement as to his part in this incident.
(N.T. Suppression Hearing 14-16).
*388Q. Captain Murray, prior to taking the statement from Officer Murray—I mean Officer Thomas, did you at any time refer to the City Charter Provision 10-110?
A. One time, yes, I did.
Q. And where did you refer to that City Charter, sir?
A. At Miss Crafton’s residence prior to Officer Thomas leaving.
Q. Would you tell the Court what your reference to that City Charter Provision was, and how it came up?
A. We told Officer Thomas to come down to get his things together, and come down to Homicide, and he requested could he come down at a later time. And I told him no. He said, “Well, I would like to come down tomorrow.”
I said, “Don’t you understand that you have to give a statement? You are involved in some activity here, and I have to investigate this under the City Charter, under 10—”
Q. [THE COURT]: 10 What?
A. [CAPTAIN MURRAY]: 10-110 Section, Your Honor. I said I have to get this done this evening.
(N.T. Suppression Hearing 27-8).

. Section 10-110 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter reads as follows:
If any officer or employee of the City shall willfully refuse or fail to appear before any court, or before the Council or any committee thereof, or before any officer, department, board, commission or body authorized to conduct any hearing or inquiry, or having appeared, shall refuse to testify or to answer any question relating to the affairs or government of the City or the conduct of any City officer or employe on the ground that his testimony or answers would tend to incriminate him or shall refuse to waive immunity from prosecution on account of any matter about which he may be asked to testify before such court or at any such hearing or inquiry, he shall forfeit his office or position, and shall not be eligible thereañer for appointment to any position in the City service.
(emphasis added).

. This is indicative of the Commonwealth Court’s expansion of the doctrine enunciated in Commonwealth v. Triplett, 462 Pa. 244, 341 A.2d 62 (1975), to encompass statements offered in non-criminal proceedings. See also Leroi v. Civil Service Comm’n of Philadelphia, 34 Pa.Cmwlth. 190, 382 A.2d 1260 (1978); DiCiacco v. Civil Service Comm’n of Philadelphia, 37 Pa.Cmwlth. 77, 389 A.2d 703 (1978). Both cases applied Triplett to statements admitted into evidence at discharge hearings.

. In Leroi and DiCiacco the Court declined to decide whether it would be more disposed to hold testimony admissible if Miranda warnings had been given in addition to Charter warnings. In both cases exculpatory statements were admitted on the basis that they were not incriminating. Such reasoning is clearly inapplicable in a criminal proceeding since statements made subsequent to a coerced Miranda waiver are inadmissible regardless of their nature. Commonwealth v. Bordner, 432 Pa. 405, 247 A.2d 612 (1968).

. The Court has zealously upheld the privilege against self-incrimination from infringement by economic duress. In Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 88 S.Ct. 1913, 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1968), a provision of a New York City statute requiring policemen to waive immunity or forfeit their job was held violative of the fourteenth and fifth amendments. The Court censured such statutes stating that “the mandate of the great privilege against self-incrimination does not tolerate the attempt, regardless of its ultimate effectiveness, to coerce a waiver of the immunity it confers on penalty of the loss of employment.” 392 U.S. at 279, 88 S.Ct. at 1916. In a case decided the same day as Gardner the Court reiterated that public employees are entitled to the privilege against self-incrimination and that a statute threatening unemployment unless this privilege is waived is unconstitutional. Uniformed Sanitation Men Ass’n v. Comm’n of Sanitation of the City of New York, 392 U.S. 280, 88 S.Ct. 1917, 20 L.Ed.2d 1089 (1968). In Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 94 S.Ct. 316, 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973), a unanimous Court held a New York statute that sought to compel testimony from public contractors by threatening cancellation of all current contracts and disqualification from future contracts to be unconstitutional under the fourteenth and fifth amendments. In reaching this holding the court stressed that “[ijmmunity is required if there is to be ‘rational accommodation between the imperatives of the privilege and the legitimate demands of government to compel citizens to testify.’” 414 U.S. at 81, 94 S.Ct. at 324, quoting Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 446, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 1657, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972).

. In a broad condemnation of this procedure the Court stated: “We think the statements were infected by the coercion inherent in this scheme of questioning and cannot be sustained as voluntary under our prior decisions.” Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 497-98, 87 S.Ct. 616, 618-19, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967) (emphasis added). In Lefkowitz the Court again held that “[a] waiver secured under threat of substantial economic sanction cannot be termed voluntary.” 414 U.S. at 82-3.