Com. v. Bailey

• Decision Date: 18 March 1975
• Citation: 460 Pa. 498,333 A.2d 883
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Craig BAILEY, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 883

333 A.2d 883

460 Pa. 498

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Craig BAILEY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 18, 1975.

[460 Pa. 501] Robert B. Mozenter, Philadelphia, for appellant.

F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., Dist. Atty., Richard A. Sprague, 1st Asst. Dist. Atty.,

Steven H. Goldblatt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Division B. Leadbetter, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.

OPINION

MANDERINO, Justice.

Prior to trial on a murder indictment the appellant, Craig Bailey, filed an application to suppress evidence which was alleged to be the product of an illegal police detention. The application was denied and the evidence consisting of oral inculpatory statements made by the appellant to the police was introduced by the prosecution during the appellant's trial by jury which resulted in a verdict of murder in the first degree. Post-trial motions were denied and the appellant received a sentence of life imprisonment. This appeal followed.

On January 16, 1970, two men committed a robbery at John Wallace's Food Market in Philadelphia. John Wallace, who was shot during the robbery, died on January 23, 1970. On that date, officers from the homicide division of the police department began an investigation during which information was received from an informer, whose identity was never revealed by the officers, that the appellant, with a .22 revolver in his possession, had been seen in the neighborhood on the evening of the robbery. Later, the officers learned that the appellant was in jail awaiting disposition of charges, which were not related to the food market robbery. Those charges were all terminated in appellant's favor. One of the pending charges was dismissed on February 11, 1970, and on February 20, 1970, the appellant was found not guilty on the other pending charge.

Following the not guilty verdict on February 20, there were no charges pending against the appellant and he was entitled to leave the courtroom free of any restraint by law enforcement officials. The prosecution disputed this fact in its brief submitted to this Court prior to oral argument. That brief contained an assertion that the appellant was 'also in violation of parole,' and thus his continued detention was proper even after he was found not guilty. Because close scrutiny of the almost 400 page record prior to oral argument, failed to reveal any basis for the prosecution's assertion, this Court, at oral argument, requested a supplemental brief concerning the prosecution's assertion of its original brief. The supplemental brief conceded that the assertion was 'error' and there was no basis in the record for the assertion. There is thus no dispute that appellant's continued detention on February 20, 1970, after the not guilty verdict, was not based on any pending charges of any kind. Instead, it was based on an arrest, immediately after the not guilty verdict, by officers of the homicide division who had obtained a judicial order, called a prisoner's bring-up order, authorizing the taking of appellant to the Police Administration Building. Appellant was thus arrested at a time when he was not being lawfully detained for any reason.

The appellant, after his arrest, was brought to the Police Administration Building at 2:00 p.m., the afternoon of February 20, 1970. He was given Miranda warnings about one hour after his arrival. Four separate interrogation sessions followed during which the appellant was handcuffed to a chair. The last such session ended at 12:30 a.m., the following day, ten and one-half hours after the appellant's arrival. During each of the four interrogation sessions, inculpatory statements made by the appellant were written down by one of the interrogating officers. The appellant refused to sign any of the written statements.

The appellant claims that the oral inculpatory statements should have been suppressed since they were the product of an illegal detention. We agree and reverse.

The detention of a citizen is illegal if the police do not have the constitutionally required probable cause to seize his person. U.S.Const. amend. IV; Pa.Const. art. I, § 8 P.S.; See Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Betrand Appeal, 451 Pa. 381, 303 A.2d 486 (1973); Commonwealth v. Garvin, 448 Pa. 258, 293 A.2d 33 (1972). Evidence obtained during an illegal police detention must be suppressed unless the prosecution can establish that the evidence was the product of some cause other than the illegal detention. See Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969); Betrand Appeal, 451 Pa. 381, 303 A.2d 486 (1973). We must thus determine (1) whether the appellant was illegally detained by the police, and if he was (2) whether the prosecution can establish that the appellant's oral statements were the product of some cause other than the illegal detention. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Hale v. Henderson, 485 F.2d 266 (6th Cir. 1973).

Since all pending charges, prior to appellant's detention in the Police Administration Building, had been terminated in appellant's favor, there was no reason to continue to deprive the appellant of his liberty Unless the officers, who were investigating the food market robbery, had probable cause to detain the appellant. The prosecution claims that there was probable cause in this case based on information received from a trustworthy person interviewed by the police during their investigation. We can only accept that contention, however, if, from the facts disclosed by the police, two reasonable inferences can be drawn. The required inferences are that (1) the informer is trustworthy and (2) the facts implicating the person seized were reliably witnessed and not fictitious. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Commonwealth v. Smith, 453 Pa. 326, 309 A.2d 413 (1973).

In this case neither of the two required inferences can be drawn from the disclosed facts. First, the trustworthiness of the informer was not established. The officer who received the information did not disclose the identity of the informer. The officer testified that (a) he had known the informer for four or five years, (b) the informer was reliable and trustworthy, and (c) previous information received from the same informer was helpful in other arrests and investigations, including the solving of other homicides. There was no other information disclosed by the police about the informer.

General conclusions concerning the trustworthiness of an informer are not sufficient. Specific facts must be disclosed. 'Some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informer . . . was 'credible' (must be disclosed) . . ..' Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1514, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, 729 (1964). 'A mere assertion . . . that the informer was 'reliable' does not satisfy the Aguilar-Spinelli test.' Commonwealth v. Hall, 451 Pa. 201, 207, 302 A.2d 342, 345 (1973). There must be some factual circumstances presented which would indicate that the informer was trustworthy. Mere conclusions on the part of the police are not enough. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964). In this case, the police disclosed only general information. The officer could not state how many arrests ever resulted or whether any convictions were ever obtained from the information supplied in the past by the informer. The officer's conclusions of reliability and trustworthiness were thus not supported by sufficient underlying circumstances. A neutral judicial officer could not have drawn the required inference that the informer was trustworthy.

Second, the facts disclosed are also insufficient to permit a reasonable inference that facts implicating the appellant were reliably witnessed and not fictitious. The only information received by the police was that the appellant Had been seen. There were no...