Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1780-2007 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : CP-21-CR-1780-2007 : : JESSICA KASSIRER : IN RE: DEFENDANT’S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE HESS, J. OPINION AND ORDER On April 14, 2007 Trooper Douglas Howell of the Pennsylvania State Police interviewed Defendant Jessica Kassirer (“Kassirer”) at the Carlisle Regional Medical Center in order to gather information regarding Kassirer’s assertion that she had been raped early that morning. (Notes of Testimony, Hearing on Omnibus Pretrial Motion, 6) (Hereinafter N.T.). Trooper Howell asked Kassirer a number of questions and believed there were inconsistencies in her answers. (N.T. 7). During the next few days Trooper Howell interviewed other people and found further inconsistencies with Kassirer’s story. (N.T. 8). Trooper Howell called Kassirer and asked her to come to the station to talk further. (N.T. 8). An appointment was scheduled for the morning of thth April 18, but Kassirer called to cancel the appointment early in the morning of the 18. (N.T. 9). Trooper Howell called her back that morning and Kassirer related that she was no longer interested in pressing charges, but Trooper Howell told her that he still wanted to talk to her and wanted her to sign a refusal to prosecute form. (N.T. 9). Kassirer agreed to come to the station. (N.T. 9). CP-21-CR-1780-2007 Kassirer arrived at the police station, alone, at about eight o’clock in the morning on th April 18. (N.T. 10). Trooper Howell, who was dressed in a business suit and not a police uniform, met her at the front of the station, and walked with her to a large conference room. (N.T. 32). They sat at the conference table, with the door to the room ajar. (N.T. 15). Kassirer signed the refusal to prosecute form. (N.T. 10). Trooper Howell then told Kassirer he would like to talk about some of her prior statements. (N.T. 10). A few minutes into the interview Kassirer began crying and admitted to lying and making up the report of the rape. (N.T. 11). They continued to talk for about twenty-five to thirty minutes. (N.T. 28). He then asked her to make a 1 written statement, and left the room while she did so. (N.T. 28). Trooper Howell read the statement, and because the statement did not absolve the suspect of the crime, Trooper Howell asked her to be more specific. (N.T. 41). A few minutes later Trooper Howell came back to the room with Trooper McCombs so that Trooper McCombs could witness Trooper Howell ask Kassirer a number of questions including whether the form was filled out on her own free will, and whether the statement was truthful. (N.T. 28). Kassirer signed her written statement at 8:42 and then left the station. (N.T. 34). She had not been read her Miranda rights. (N.T. 33). By the same token, she never expressed that she wanted to leave or that she didn’t want to answer questions or talk to Trooper Howell. (N.T. 17- 18). 1 Kassirer claims that Trooper Howell told her that if she did not write a confession he would put her in jail. Trooper Howell denies that he made such a threat. (N.T. 44). At the hearing, we resolved this issue of credibility in favor of the Commonwealth. 2 CP-21-CR-1780-2007 Based on her written statement, Kassirer was charged with False Reports, a misdemeanor of the second degree. She has moved to suppress her statements on grounds that the statements were either in violation of Miranda and its progeny, or coerced from her. We must initially determine whether the interview of Kassirer at the police station on April 18, 2007, was a “custodial interrogation” in order to determine whether her written statement was given in violation of Miranda or was coerced from her. This is because statements made during a custodial interrogation are inadmissible if the interviewee is not first read her Miranda rights, such statements being otherwise presumed involuntary (coerced). Commonwealth v. Johnson, 727 A.2d 1089, 1100 (Pa. 1999) . We are satisfied that there was no custodial interrogation in this case. In Commonwealth v. Chacko, 459 A.2d 311, 314 (Pa. 1983), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court followed the mandate of the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966) and ruled: The test for determining whether a suspect is being subjected to custodial interrogation so as to necessitate Miranda warnings is whether he is physically deprived of his freedom in any significant way or is placed in a situation in which he reasonably believes that his freedom of action or movement is restricted by such interrogation. The Pennsylvania Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Levanduski reiterated this point by holding: [T]he test for custodial interrogation does not depend upon the subjective intent of the law enforcement officer interrogator. Rather, the test focuses on whether the individual being interrogated reasonably believes his freedom of action is being restricted. 907 A.2d 3, 24 (Pa.Super. Ct. 2006). Detentions become “custodial” for the purpose of Miranda when the detention becomes the functional equivalent of an arrest. Commonwealth v. Mannion, 3 CP-21-CR-1780-2007 725 A.2d 196 (Pa.Super. 1999). According to the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Levanduski: The factors a court utilizes to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, whether a detention has become so coercive as to constitute the functional equivalent of arrest include: the basis for the detention; its length; its location; whether the suspect was transported against his or her will, how far, and why; whether restraints were used; whether the law enforcement officer showed, threatened or used force; and the investigative methods employed to confirm or dispel suspicions. The fact that a police investigation has focused on a particular individual does not automatically trigger “custody,” thus requiring Miranda warnings. 907 A.2d 3, 24 (Pa.Super. Ct. 2006). The Pennsylvania Superior Court in Levanduski applied these factors to the facts of that case, and determined that there was not a custodial interrogation. Id. at 26-27. Comparing the facts of the current case to the facts of Levanduski, we come to the same conclusion here. First, in Levanduski it was clear that the defendant was the focus of an investigation during the interview. Id. at 26. In the current case, Kassirer was also the focus of an investigation. Trooper Howell, satisfied that there was no merit to her story, was investigating the possibility that Kassirer had made a false report. The fact that a police investigation has focused on a particular person does not automatically require Miranda warnings. Id. In Levanduski, the defendant was at the police station for two and a half hours before she was eventually given Miranda warnings. Id. In the current case, the interview lasted less than forty-five minutes. In Levanduski, the defendant was placed in an interview room in the police station. Id. In the current case, the interview took place in a conference room in the police station. In Levanduski, the defendant voluntarily arrived at the police station, and was not taken 4 CP-21-CR-1780-2007 to the station by the police. Id. at 26-27. In the current case, Kassirer also came to the police station voluntarily. In the current case, Trooper Howell was the only officer that interviewed Kassirer. He was in a suit, his firearm was not prominently displayed or brandished, he never yelled at Kassirer, never made any threats, and never demanded that she make a statement. In fact, the interview was so benign that Kassirer did not realize she was inculpating herself with the statement she was making, as she did not know her actions had been illegal. (N.T. 33, 34). In short, there is nothing in this case to suggest that the defendant believed, in any way, that her freedom of movement was restricted or that she was experiencing the functional equivalent of an arrest. ORDER AND NOW, this day of February, 2008, the omnibus pretrial motion of the defendant in the nature of a motion to suppress evidence is DENIED. BY THE COURT, _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. Daniel Sodus, Esquire Sr. Assistant District Attorney Michael Palermo, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm 5 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : CP-21-CR-1780-2007 : : JESSICA KASSIRER : IN RE: DEFENDANT’S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER AND NOW, this day of February, 2008, the omnibus pretrial motion of the defendant in the nature of a motion to suppress evidence is DENIED. BY THE COURT, _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. Daniel Sodus, Esquire Sr. Assistant District Attorney Michael Palermo, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm