United States v. Steele, Crim. No. 76-114 (Erie).
| Decision Date | 11 August 1976 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 76-114 (Erie). |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Larry Walter STEELE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Blair A. Griffith, U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Leonard G. Ambrose, III, Erie, Pa., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS GIVEN TO PROBATION OFFICER
On October 10, 1975, at approximately 11:00 p. m., the Pennsylvania State Police stopped a Pontiac automobile driven by the defendant on Interstate 79 in the vicinity of Meadville Interchange in Crawford County. The car was stopped for good and sufficient reasons since the police had observed it being driven in an erratic manner weaving from one side of the road to the other. After the car had been stopped, it was observed that a sawed-off shotgun was lying on the front seat of the car beside the driver. Defendant refused a breathalyzer test and was taken to the police barracks and later before a magistrate having been given his Miranda rights.
At a later time a preliminary hearing was held. Defendant at the time was on probation from a previous charge in Crawford County and a 48 hour detainer had been placed against him for probation violation. After the preliminary hearing, he was placed in the custody of William Chisholm, Chief Adult Probation Officer of Crawford County, to be returned to the Crawford County Jail.
On the way back to the Crawford County Jail, Chisholm questioned him about the circumstances of his arrest but did not inform him as to his Miranda rights. The defendant thereupon told about being at a party where there had been considerable drinking and that the sawed-off shotgun had been given to him by someone although he could not explain clearly how it came into his possession. It appeared that the probation officer considered that there had been a violation of probation, one of the conditions of which was not to consume alcohol and not to return to Crawford County without permission of the court. The probation officer testified it was his custom to question probationers about violations of probation and that he expected to be given truthful answers. Defendant at the time apparently was in handcuffs.
Defendant has previously moved to suppress the physical evidence seized from him at the time of his arrest on the motor vehicle violation but after evidentiary hearing he withdrew the motion and the motion to suppress physical evidence was therefore denied. We now have before us a motion to suppress the statements made to the probation officer in the car enroute to the Crawford County Jail relative to the gun charge now pending before him in this court at the above number.
There is no question but that defendant was in custody at the time he was questioned by the probation officer. In custody interrogation has been held to be inherently and psychologically coercive and the Miranda warnings must be given before the same takes place when the defendant is in custody. Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Ringel ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minnesota v. Murphy
...732, 249 N.E.2d 882, 302 N.Y.S.2d 260 (1969); Hughes v. Gwinn, W.Va., 290 S.E.2d 5, 7 (1981). 4. Compare, e.g., United States v. Steele, 419 F.Supp. 1385, 1386-1387 (W.D.Pa.1976); People v. Garcia, 240 Cal.App.2d 9, 12-13, 49 Cal.Rptr. 146, 148 (1966); and State v. Lekas, 201 Kan. 579, 582-......
-
State v. Roberts
...parole or probation officer, to a defendant in custody, in order to admit the statements made by the defendant. United States v. Steele (W.D.Pa.1976), 419 F.Supp. 1385, 1386-1387. In Steele, the defendant was placed in the custody of his probation officer, after a preliminary hearing on a g......
-
Marrs v. State
...Deaton, 477 F.2d 65 (1973), cert. denied, Deaton v. United States, 414 U.S. 840, 94 S.Ct. 94, 38 L.Ed.2d 76 (1973); United States v. Steele, 419 F.Supp. 1385 (W.D.Pa.1976). Contra see State v. Johnson, 87 S.D. 43, 202 N.W.2d 132 (1972); People v. Ronald W., 24 N.Y.2d 732, 302 N.Y.S.2d 260, ......
-
Commonwealth v. Cooley
...v. Bland, 908 F.2d 471, 472–74 (9th Cir.1990) ; United States v. Deaton, 468 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir.1972) ; United States v. Steele, 419 F.Supp. 1385, 1386–87 (W.D.Pa.1976) ; State v. Lekas, 201 Kan. 579, 442 P.2d 11, 16 (1968) ; People v. Elliott, 295 Mich.App. 623, 815 N.W.2d 575 (2012) ;......