Com. v. Murray
| Decision Date | 09 October 1970 |
| Citation | 441 Pa. 22,271 A.2d 500 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert A. MURRAY, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
W. H. McCrea, Jr., John McCrea, McCrea & McCrea, Newville, for appellant.
Harold E. Sheely, Dist. Atty., Carlisle, for appellee.
Before BELL, C.J., JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, and POMEROY, JJ.
Robert A. Murray was convicted by a jury in Cumberland County on two indictments charging him with involuntary manslaughter. A motion for a new trial was denied, and a prison sentence was imposed. An appeal filed in the Superior Court resulted in a per curiam affirmance without opinion, 255 A.2d 594. Wse granted allocatur and now reverse because we conclude the use of certain evidence at trial violated constitutional due process.
The basic facts are undisputed.
About 5:30 p.m. on March 21, 1968, an automobile operated by Murray, while traveling on a two lane highway, left its lane of traffic, crossed over to the other side of the highway, and crashed into an automobile coming from the opposite direction. Injuries suffered in the collision caused the death of two occupants of the second vehicle. Murray himself was seriously injured and removed to a hospital.
About 7:10 p.m. of the same evening, a test of Murray's blood was made by technicians in the hospital at the instance of an investigating police officer. This occurred without Murray's consent or the prior issuance of a search warrant. An analysis of the blood sample indicated an alcoholic content of 2.06 milligrams per c.c. The following day, a complaint was filed and arrest warrants issued. Because of Murray's condition and hospitalization, execution of the warrants was delayed until April 3rd, or until the time Murray was being discharged from the hospital.
Based on the information gained from the analysis of the sample of Murray's blood, under the circumstances before related, a competent medical pathologist testified at trial,' 'I think there was a 95% Chance that he (Murray) was intoxicated.'
A timely filed pretrial motion to suppress evidence of the blood test was denied and an objection to its use at trial was overruled.
The person of an individual may be lawfully searched, even without a search warrant, if the search is conducted as an incident to a lawful arrest. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), and Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 421 Pa. 169, 218 A.2d 249 (1966). 1 And, under certain circumstances, this includes intrusion into a person's body for blood to be analyzed for alcoholic content. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). Cf. Commonwealth v. Gordon, 431 Pa. 512, 246 A.2d 325 (1968). However, for such a search to be valid, it must be substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and confined to the immediate vicinity thereof. Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964); Commonwealth v. Harris, 429 Pa. 215, 239 A.2d 290 (1968). While the exigencies of the existing circumstances may render the search valid even if not strictly contemporaneous with the arrest, 2 the present situation is not such a case. Although the altruistic motives of the arresting officer in delaying the arrest are to be admired, this, in itself, cannot warrant the conclusion that the search of Murray's person thirteen days before his arrest was an 'incident' thereto.
The order of the Superior Court and the judgment of the court of original jurisdiction are reversed, and a new trial is ordered.
There is no doubt that a warrantless search in the form of a blood test for alcoholic content, if it is to be valid, must be 'substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and * * * confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest.' Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 486, 84 S.Ct. 889 891, 11 L.Ed.2d 856, 859 (1964). The problem is how to apply this test in a given set of circumstances, bearing in mind that it is constitutionally mandated by the Fourth Amendment: if not closely connected in time and place with an arrest, a warrantless search is 'unreasonable'.
The Court holds that the lapse of 13 days between search and arrest operates, per se, to vitiate the search as not substantially contemporaneous with, and so not an incident to, the arrest. While following the letter of the test as enunciated in Stoner, supra, this holding, in my view, distorts its substance. The Court's opinion recognizes that existing circumstances may render valid a search which is not strictly contemporaneous with the arrest, Commonwealth v. Gordon, 431 Pa. 512, 246 A.2d 325 (1968), but ignores the extenuating circumstances which are present here. The blood test was ordered because the investigating officer who extricated appellant from the wreckage found that the appellant 'reeked of alcohol', and that there were beer bottles in his car. As in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1835, 16 L.Ed.2d 908, 919 (1966), this presented an emergency situation 'in which the delay necessary to obtain a (search) warrant, under the circumstances, threatened 'the destruction of the evidence. " While in Schmerber the arrest of the suspect took place at the scene of the accident, the arrest here was deferred because the appellant, like the victim, was seriously injured and in need ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Danforth
... ... Railway Labor Executives' Association, 489 U.S. 602, ----, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 1412, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989), citing Schmerber v. California, supra 384 U.S. at 767-68, 86 S.Ct. at 1834; Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 760, 105 S.Ct. 1611, 1616, 84 L.Ed.2d 662 (1985). See also Commonwealth v. Murray, 441 Pa. 22, 25, ... Page 1017 ... 271 A.2d 500, 501 (1970); Commonwealth v. Smith, 382 Pa.Super. 288, 555 A.2d 185 (1989). 6 Since a blood alcohol test constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, the test is constitutionally valid only if reasonable. United States ... ...
-
Filmon v. State
...not been arrested); People v. Butor, 75 Misc.2d 558, 348 N.Y.S.2d 89 (Dutchess Cty. 1973); People v. Young, supra; Commonwealth v. Murray, 441 Pa. 22, 271 A.2d 500 (1970) (blood test on injured driver suppressed '(a)lthough the altruistic motives of the arresting officer in delaying the arr......
-
Pahle v. Colebrookdale Tp.
...a search and seizure.6 See, e.g., Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 772, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); Commonwealth v. Murray, 441 Pa. 22, 271 A.2d 500 (1970); Commonwealth v. Quarles, 229 Pa.Super. 363, 376-377 n. 4, 324 A.2d 452 (1974). The off-duty officers' statements, whil......
-
State v. Bellino
...People v. Todd, 59 Ill.2d 534, 322 N.E.2d 447 (1975); Layland v. State, 535 P.2d 1043 (Alaska 1975). See also, Commonwealth v. Murray, 441 Pa. 22, 271 A.2d 500 (1970). To the contrary: State v. Mitchell, 245 So.2d 618 (Fla., 1971); State v. McMaster, 118 N.J.Super. 476, 288 A.2d 583 (1972).......