Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-1960 CRIMINALCOMMONWEALTH CRAIG CALABRESE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 01-1960 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND DISMISS COUNT OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE BEFORE BAYLEY, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., January 23, 2002:-- Defendant, Craig Calabrese, is charged with a count of driving under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered him incapable of safe driving,1 and a summary count of public drunkenness? He filed a motion to suppress evidence upon which a hearing was conducted on January 17, 2002. We find the following facts. On June 22, 2001, a little after midnight, Sergeant James Sadler and Officer William Burger, of the Silver Springs Township Police, who were in separate patrol cars, were dispatched to a reported single-vehicle accident on Woods Drive in Silver Springs Township. While Sergeant Sadler was driving on Woods Drive, approximately three quarters of a mile from the reported accident scene, he saw a man staggering toward 1 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731 (a)(1). 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 5505. 01-1960 CRIMINAL TERM him on the opposite side of the road. It was raining. The man had no shirt on. Sergeant Sadler stopped and asked the man, defendant herein, if he was okay. Defendant said that everything was okay, and that he was on his way home. Defendant's speech was slurred. His eyes were bloodshot. As Sergeant Sadler testified, "He almost had a staring gaze towards you like almost passed you not really looking at you." Defendant swayed as he stood in front of the window of the patrol car. Sergeant Sadler saw a "rub rash or a bruising kind of like a brush burn if you would on his left shoulder which is common to a seatbelt injury." Sergeant Sadler asked defendant for his driver's license so that he would know who he was talking to. After getting a license out of his pocket, defendant started to walk down the road. Sergeant Sadler asked him several times to stop. Defendant kept walking. Sergeant Sadler got out of his car, hurried to where defendant was, and ordered him to stop, telling him that otherwise he would spray him with some pepper spray. Defendant stopped. Sergeant Sadler asked him if he was hurt in the accident, and if he was alone. Defendant said that he was not hurt, he was by himself, he just wanted to go home, and he asked Sergeant Sadler not to arrest him. Sergeant Sadler smelled an odor of alcoholic beverages on defendant. He placed defendant under arrest for public drunkenness. Defendant was handcuffed and put in the back of the patrol car. Officer Burger arrived after defendant was handcuffed. He heard defendant make several comments that were not solicited by either police officer, including a statement that he was the only one driving, and that he just wanted to call his wife, -2- 01-1960 CRIMINAL TERM Rebecca, to take him home. Sergeant Sadler took defendant to a booking center, and Officer Burger went to the scene of the accident. He found a 1997 Ford Contour with four-way emergency hazard lights activated. No one was there. The front end of the car was smashed where it had completely sheered off a telephone pole. The car was registered to Craig M. Calabrese and Rebecca L. Cox. The accident occurred at a slight dogleg left, with the vehicle going off the right side of the road. While Officer Burger was arranging for the vehicle to be towed, Rebecca Cox arrived in another vehicle. DISCUSSION I. Defendant maintains that all of the statements he made to the police before he arrived at the booking center must be suppressed because they were made while he was in custody without having been advised of, or his having waived, his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The test to determine whether a person is subjected to custody whereby custodial interrogation necessitates Miranda warnings is whether the person is physically deprived of freedom in a significant way or is placed in a situation where the person would reasonably believe that his or her freedom of action or movement is restricted by such interrogation. Commonwealth v. Chacko, 500 Pa. 571 (1983). The standard for determining whether police have initiated a custodial interrogation or an arrest is an objective one, with due consideration given to the reasonable impression conveyed to the person interrogated rather than the strictly subjective view of the police or the -3- 01-1960 CRIMINAL TERM person being seized. Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 535 Pa. 210 (1993). The factors for determining custodial interrogation include: The basis for the detention; its length; its location; whether the person was transported against his or her will, how far and why; whether restraints where used; whether the police officer showed, threatened, or used force; and the investigative methods employed to confirm or dispel suspicions. Commonwealth v. Peters, 434 Pa. Super. 268 (1994). Police detentions become custodial when, under the totality of the circumstances, the conditions and/or duration of the detention becomes so coercive as to become the functional equivalent of an arrest. Commonwealth v. Ellis, 379 Pa. Super. 337 (1988). Section 5505 of the Crimes Code provides that "A person is guilty of a summary offense if he appears in any public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol... to a degree that he may endanger himself or other persons or property, or annoy persons in his vicinity." Officer Sadler briefly detained defendant to determine if his condition was such that he was manifestly under the influence of alcohol that he might endanger himself as he walked on Woods Road. Also, (1) given the report of the one- car accident nearby, (2) which accident was in the direction from which defendant was walking, (3) with defendant appearing to be manifestly under the influence of alcohol, and (4) defendant having an injury that was consistent with having been caused by a seatbelt, Sergeant Sadler had reasonable suspicion that defendant was the operator of the vehicle, and that he had driven it while under the influence of alcohol. Thus, he sought identification and briefly detained defendant for investigation. Terry v. Ohio, -4- 01-1960 CRIMINAL TERM 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1863, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Commonwealth v. E.M., 735 A.2d 654 (Pa. 1999). When defendant started to walk away from the police car, Sergeant Sadler stopped him by threatening to spray him with pepper spray. He asked defendant if he was hurt in the accident, and if he was alone. Defendant answered the question. He also asked Sergeant Sadler not to arrest him, which is an indication that he knew he was not in custody. At that point, the investigative detention was brief, and defendant was not cuffed or placed into the police car. See Commonwealth v. Turner, 772 A.2d 970 (Pa. Super. 2001). Based on the totality of circumstances, we find that defendant was not in custodial detention. Therefore, statements he made are admissible against him. Once defendant was arrested for summary public drunkenness, and handcuffed, he volunteered that he was the only one driving. Interrogation occurs when the police should know that their words or actions are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, and the circumstances must reflect a measure of compulsion above and beyond that inherent in custody itself. Commonwealth v. Fisher, 769 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 2001). If a person is in custody, and makes spontaneous, voluntary statements that are not in response to interrogation, those statements are admissible into evidence. Id. Defendant's volunteered statements are admissible against him. II. Defendant further maintains that the charge of driving under the influence should be dismissed because there is insufficient evidence of a prima facie case. A car registered to defendant sheered off a telephone pole. The car was abandoned, and -5- 01-1960 CRIMINAL TERM defendant was found walking away from the scene of the accident. Defendant appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. In response to Sergeant Sadler asking him if he was hurt in the accident, and if he was alone, he said that he was not hurt, he was by himself, and he just wanted to go home. He then spontaneously said that he was the only one driving, and that he wanted to call his wife, Rebecca, to take him home. Rebecca Cox, a co-owner of the 1997 Ford Contour, later drove to the accident scene. This evidence is sufficient to take the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol to trial. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of January, 2002, IT I$ ORDERED: (1) The motion of defendant to suppress evidence, I$ DENIED. (2) The motion of defendant to dismiss the charge of driving under the influence, I$ DENIED. By the Court, Kara Woodruff, Esquire For the Commonwealth Paul Bradford Orr, Esquire For Defendant :saa Edgar B. Bayley, J. -6-