Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-2046-2006 (2) COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CP-21-CR-2046-2006 : OTN: L290190-5 : : CHARGES: (1) DRIVING UNDER THE : INFLUENCE, : GENERAL IMPAIRMENT : (2) DRIVING UNDER THE : INFLUENCE V. : C. S., SCH. I : (3) DRIVING UNDER THE : INFLUENCE : C. S., SCH. II OR III; : (4) DRIVING UNDER THE : INFLUENCE, : COMBINATION : BRIAN K. BROWN : AFFIANT: PTL. JAMES PETERSON IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 Ebert, J., November 14, 2007 - Defendant Brian K. Brown has filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania 1 following an Order denying his Motion to Suppress Evidence. Appellant contends that this Court erred by not suppressing Defendant’s statements of marijuana use and any subsequent evidence derived there from as those statements were elicited by the police without first 2 providing the Defendant with Miranda warnings. This opinion in support of the order denying the Motion to Suppress is written pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a). 1 See Order of Court, dated July 18, 2007. 2 See Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed Oct. 11, 2007. 1 DISCUSSION 3 While we have already issued an opinion for this case, we will write a brief opinion addressing Defendant Brian Brown’s memorandum accompanying his concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. Defendant’s sole argument is that Officer Wolfe knew, or should have known, that his 4 statements regarding the rolling papers would elicit inculpatory statements. We disagree. While it is true that even informational comments can be construed by a suspect as interrogating, as was the case in Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 787 A.2d 394 (Pa. 2001), such is not the situation in the case at bar. To briefly review the law surrounding this issue, Miranda warnings are necessary only when the suspect is subjected to custodial interrogation and “interrogation” occurs when police should know that their words or actions are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response and circumstances reflect a measure of compulsion above and beyond that inherent in custody itself. Com. v. Fisher, 769 A.2d 1116, 1125 (Pa. 2001). However, an inculpatory statement not made in response to police interrogation, “is classified as a volunteered statement, gratuitous and not subject to suppression for lack of warnings.” Com. v. Ingram, 814 A.2d 264, 271 (Pa. Super. 2002). In Defendant’s memorandum accompanying his matters complained of on appeal, he refers to the case of Commonwealth v. DeJesus. In DeJesus, the Supreme Court found that a detective should have known that his comments informing defendant that he had been implicated in shootings were reasonably likely to evoke an effort on defendant’s part to defend himself and give his own version of his involvement in crimes at issue, so as to require the detective to first 3 See Order of Court, dated July 18, 2007. 4 See Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed Oct. 11, 2007. 2 advise defendant of his Miranda rights. The case stands for the principle that even informational comments can be construed by a suspect as interrogating. 787 A.2d at 403. The case at bar is clearly distinguishable from the facts of DeJesus. In this case, Officer Wolfe was bringing Defendant Brown to the prison in order to determine his blood alcohol content. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the Officer suspected at any time prior to, or even following, the discovery of the rolling papers that Defendant had been smoking marijuana. Officer Wolfe simply told Defendant, after the Defendant removed the rolling papers from his person, that he should not be taking drugs. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, the Officer told Defendant that he was not going to pursue an investigation into the rolling papers. Despite knowing that he was not going to be charged for any crime associated with the rolling papers, Defendant chose to tell the officer that he had ingested marijuana earlier that day. We cannot rationally hold that Officer Wolfe knew or should have known that, by telling the Defendant that he would not pursue an investigation into the rolling papers, Defendant would confess to smoking marijuana that day. Clearly, such statements are not of the same nature as the incriminatory, “informational” statements made by the detective in DeJesus. Rather, we find that the statements made by Officer Wolfe were not interrogatory; as such, the voluntary responses provided by the Defendant are not subject to suppression for lack of Miranda advisement. 3 CONCLUSION We reject the argument that Defendant was subjected to an interrogation prior to advisement of his Miranda rights because we find no evidence that Officer Wolfe knew, or should have known, that his statements regarding the rolling papers would elicit inculpatory statements. Hence, the statements made by the Defendant regarding his marijuana use were voluntary and not subject to suppression for lack of Miranda advisement. BY THE COURT, _____________________ M.L. Ebert Jr., J. Daniel J. Sodus, Esquire Senior Assistant District Attorney Michael Halkias, Esquire Assistant Public Defender For the Defendant 4