Court Opinion

ID: 9695240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:13:25.94928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:10.236112
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting.
Because the prosecution impermissibly used a statement obtained from appellant in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), I dissent.
Following their preliminary investigation of the killing, the police took appellant and the other persons at the scene to the Police Administration Building for questioning. The record establishes that, although appellant and the others were told that they were “witnesses,” appellant and the others were required to accompany the police to the station-house. Indeed, on cross-examination, an investigating officer acknowledged that no member of the group of so-called witnesses had been free to leave the company of the police. *578Thus, notwithstanding police representations that appellant and the others were only witnesses to the crime, the police imposed substantial limitations on the freedom of action of the group members.
The fact that at the suppression hearing appellant stated that he had believed that he was being treated as a witness until the close of police questioning does not compel a contrary conclusion. This record demonstrates that that treatment constituted a significant restraint on appellant’s freedom of action. Miranda warnings, therefore, should have preceded interrogation, see Commonwealth v. Brown, 473 Pa. 562, 375 A.2d 1260 (1977), and appellant must be granted a new trial.