Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-2111 criminalCOMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : THERESA FERNBAUGH 98-2111 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J. April 6, 1999:-- Defendant, Theresa Fernbaugh, is charged with recklessly endangering another person,1 arson endangering persons,2 and arson endangering properly.3 Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence upon which hearings were conducted on March 2 and March 23, 1999. We find the following facts. On August 28, 1998, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Officer Scott Pellman of the Mechanicsburg Police responded to a residential fire in the home of defendant at 308 East Main Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County. standing by a curb." No fire equipment had .yet arrived. upset. The officer saw defendant Defendant was frantic and She sat down and the officer said, 'q'heresa, what's going on." Defendant 1. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2705. 2. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3301(a). 3. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3301(c)(2). 4. Approximately one hour before the fire, Officer Pellman had responded to the residence of defendant's mother-in-law on a complaint of an unwanted person at the front door. The officer saw defendant who was continuously ringing the doorbell. He did not know her. The mother-in-law was taking care of the two children of defendant and her estranged husband. Officer Pellman told defendant that she would have to leave the property. She walked to her car and laid on top of the hood. She was in that position when Officer Pellman drove away. 98-2111 CRIMINAL TERM said "1 set my house on fire." Officer Pellman asked "Why?" Defendant said "Because I wanted to kill myself." The officer ask defendant how she did it. Defendant said "I'm not going to tell you." Officer Pellman arrested defendant and put her into his police vehicle. Defendant was not told her Miranda rights.~ Detective Earl Boch arrived at the scene at approximately 10:00 p.m. There was heavy smoke coming from the home. Many firemen were fighting the fire. Officer Pellman told Detective Boch that the resident of the house was in a patrol car and had said that she set the fire and was going to kill herself. He did not tell Detective Boch that he had arrested defendant. Detective Boch went to the patrol car where defendant was in the backseat of the locked vehicle. He saw that she was in and out of consciousness. Detective Boch, ~,ho was in plain clothes, asked defendant if she had used any drugs or alcohol and she told him that she had taken prescription medications to try to kill herself.6 An ambulance arrived and defendant was placed inside the ambulance and taken to the Hershey Medical Center. Detective Boch accompanied defendant in the ambulance.? Detective Boch did not ask defendant any questions while in the ambulance. He did, however, overhear defendant's responses to the ambulance personnel concerning her medical condition. 5. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 6. Detective Boch testified that he believed he identified himself to defendant as a police officer and he believed he had a badge on. 7. Detective Boch testified that he accompanied defendant because he believed that .she might technically be in custody, he did not want her to disappear, and he wanted to obtain, if he could, additional information concerning the fire. -2- 98-2111 CRIMINAL TERM When he arrived at the hospital, Detective Boch told the medical personnel what defendant had said to him ab.out. Jz~ng to kill herself.. H~ then returned in the ambulance to the scene of the fire. Trooper Nolan Brubaker~..Penr~.sylvania State Police deputy fire marshall, arrived --~ at .the.scene of the fire at 10:18~p.m. _--~'~ -he fire had been suppre~.a~be firemen ~_. were cleaning up. Trooper Brubaker-started his investigatior'~'o-determine the cause ..... ~ and the origin of the fire and was~in and.out of the.house several.times~-When -~ Detective Boch came back from-the.~espitat~he spoke to -:-told each other what they knew_at~hat:_point., They then wenLirJte-the~house whe~e-~::.~.~:..-::: : ,Brubaker. showed Boch what.hebelieved.was the place th~iCe-sta~e.d~:~?~-When they were-finished, the scene was secured..~ Ona.,subsequent date, TrooperBrubaker returned with a search warrant andconducted a further investigatio. L-Li.L'~side the . damaged property. ....... On a subsequent date, Detective::Boch:sought to intervi.ew.de~.er~dant, at the: :':-:Hershey:MedicalCenter. Defendant.was.:in:a:mental health unit :~ was: told :by, he~:doctor that defen~said that he was -to speak-t~he~:..~ia,.v~, er; Samuel Andes, Esquire, DetectiveBoch:contacted ;AttorneyAndes~:andasked:him if -~ he ceuld interview defendant. A~es~aike~.-with clefen~la,q~.~-She told him that she~ had done nothing illegal and that she wanted.to_speak to the police officer. Andes talked to defendant's treating physician who said that. defendant was competent to ..... answer questions, that going through with the police interview was important to her, -3- 98-2111 CRIMINAL TERM and that it would be beneficial for her mental health. Andes told defendant that he was not enthused about her talking to the police, that he did not know what the police knew, and that she should assume that the police would charge her with criminal offenses. Defendant, nevertheless, insisted on talking to the police. Defendant was interviewed by Detective Boch with Attorney Andes present. She was given her Miranda warnings which she waived. She denied any criminal culpability, telling Detective Boch that the fire was accidental and was caused when she dropped a candle which she unsuccessfully tried to put out before the fire spread. At the end of the interview, Detective Boch told defendant that his investigation would continue and that he would need to consult with the district attorney. The within charges were filed on October 14, 1998. DISCUSSION Defendant seeks to suppress the statements she made to Officer Pellman when he responded to the scene of the fire because she was not warned of her Miranda rights. Defendant was not in custody when she made those statements. Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 475 Pa. 97 (1977). Nor was she, at that point, deprived of her freedom in any significant way or otherwise placed in a situation where she would have reasonably believed that her freedom of action or movement was restricted. Commonwealth v. Marabel, 445 Pa. 435 (1971). Accordingly, the statement she made to the general inquiry by the police officer when he arrived at the scene of the fire as to "What's going on," to which she responded, 'I set my -4- 98-2111 CRIMINAL TERM house on fire," and her clarifying response to his question, "Why," which was "Because I wanted to kill myself," are admissible. For the same reasons defendant's next statement to Officer Pellman in response to his question as to how she set the fire, which was "I'm not going to tell you," is admissible. The statement is also not suppressible as an assertion of the right to remain silent. (;ommonwealth v. Zimmerman, 264 Pa. Super. 307 (1979). Defendant further seeks to suppress the statement that she had taken prescription medications to try to kill herself that she made to Detective Boch after she was arrested and put inside the police car at the scene of the fire. Defendant was in custody when she made this statement to Detective Boch. Therefore, that statement must be suppressed because defendant was not given her Miranda warnings. Next, defendant, without citing any authority, argues that the statements she made regarding her medical condition to 'the ambulance personnel while she was being taken to the hospital which were overheard by Detective Boch must be suppressed because of an "invasion of her privacy and intrusion into a protected zone." The ambulance personnel can testify as to such statements so whether Detective Boch overheard them is of no legal import. Defendant was under arrest so the detective had a right to accompany defendant to the hospital. There is no basis to suppress these statements. See (;ommonwealth v. Arnold, 331 Pa. Super. 345 (1984). -5- 98-2111 CRIMINAL TERM Defendant further challenges the reentry into her home on the night of the fire by Trooper Brubaker with Detective Boch after Boch had returned from the Hershey Medical Center. This warrantless entry was a legal continuation of Trooper Brubaker's investigation to determine the cause and origin of the fire. Commonwealth v. Smith, 511 Pa. 36 (1986). Lastly, defendant seeks to suppress the statements she made to Detective Boch when he questioned her at the Hershey Medical Center. This interview was conducted with her attorney present and after she waived her Miranda rights. Defendant insisted on talking to the detective despite the reservations of her attorney. These circumstances render such statements admissible despite the fact that on the night of the fire defendant made a statement, to Detective Boch that will be suppressed. The (1) passage of time, (2) insistence by defendant that she wanted to talk to the detective, and her (3) having obtained the advice of her attorney, (4) waived of her Miranda rights, and (5) having an attorney present during the questioning rendered the latter statements an act of free will sufficient to break any causal connection with the former statement. Commonwealth v. Chacko, 500 Pa. 571 (1983). For the foregoing reasons, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of April, 1999, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The motion of defendant to suppress a statement that she made to -6- 98-2111 CRIMINAL TERM Detective Earl Boch that she had taken prescription medications to try to kill herself, IS GRANTED. Jaime Keating, Esquire For the Commonwealth (2) The remainder of defendant's motion to suppress evidence, IS DENIED. By the Court, Edgar B. Ba~ey, ~. / Charles P. Mackin, Esquire For Defendant :saa -7-