U.S. v. Edwards

• Citation: 539 F.2d 689
• Decision Date: 05 August 1976
• Docket Number: No. 76-1483,76-1483
• Parties: , 1 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 307 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Arden EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Page 689

539 F.2d 689

35 A.L.R.Fed. 599, 1 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 307

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Arden EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-1483.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 5, 1976.

Jo Ann D. Diamos, Federal Public Defender, Tucson, Ariz. (argued) for defendant-appellant.

William Vogel, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz. (argued), for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

Before BARNES and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and EAST, ^* District Judge.

ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, Circuit Judge:

Edwards appeals from a conviction of rape committed on the San Carlos Apache Indian reservation. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2031, 1153. We consider his contentions after stating the facts.

Appellant and one Herbert Newman had been drinking heavily during the evening of October 31 and the early morning hours of November 1, 1975. As they were leaving Globe, Arizona on U. S. Highway 70, they picked up a girl who was hitchhiking. Edwards drove on the main road for a few miles and then turned onto a dirt road. The girl became scared and jumped from the moving vehicle as it slowed for a sharp turn. Edwards stopped and ran in pursuit. Newman drove away and Edwards caught the girl and raped her.

The victim was interviewed by law enforcement officers the same day, November 1. She showed them the scene of the crime and gave the officers a description of her assailant.

The police interviewed Herbert Newman on November 2. Newman corroborated the victim's story up to the point where he drove away while Edwards pursued the fleeing victim. The officers noted Newman was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the interview. They verified this by a breathalizer test, which registered a .25 blood alcohol level.

On November 3, the United States Attorney authorized prosecution of the defendant after the FBI advised of the relevant facts in the case. The FBI notified the Bureau of Indian Affairs that it could make the arrest. The arrest was effected by tribal police on the morning of November 4, when appellant was observed traveling in an automobile on the reservation. An arrest warrant was issued later that day.

After arrest, the suspect was advised of his rights and signed a waiver thereof. He was questioned by investigators for about forty minutes and an admission was obtained. This questioning occurred approximately seven hours after appellant was taken into custody and prior to any appearance before a magistrate.

Defendant's initial contention is that his confession was involuntary because it was made after he had been in custody for more than six hours without being taken before a magistrate. See 18 U.S.C. § 3501. Confessions given more than six hours after arrest during a delay in arraignment are, however, not per se involuntary. The delay is only one factor, to be considered in light of all the surrounding circumstances. United States v. Halbert, 436 F.2d 1226, 1231-37 (9th Cir. 1970). The trial court found that the delay in arraignment was caused solely by a shortage of personnel and vehicles to transport the suspect a distance of 125 miles to Tucson, the situs of the nearest available magistrate. There was no evidence that the defendant was the subject of oppressive police practices prior to the admission. The record thus supports the district court's finding that the confession was voluntary.

Appellant next contends that his statement should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest. The arrest, he claims, was illegal because it was made without a warrant.

The interviews with the victim and Newman provided sufficient information to support a finding of probable cause to make the arrest and appellant does not contend otherwise. The Supreme Court "has never invalidated an arrest supported by probable cause solely because the officers failed to secure a warrant." Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 113, 95 S.Ct. 854, 862, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), quoted with approval, United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 825, 46 L.Ed.2d 598, 44 U.S.L.W. 4112, 4114 (1976).

Defendant, however, points out that Watson, by its terms purported to deal only with a situation where a warrantless arrest is made in a public place. See United States v. Watson, supra, 96 S.Ct. at 825, 44 U.S.L.W. at 4114 n. 6; id., 96 S.Ct. at 826, 44 U.S.L.W. at 4116 (Stewart, J., concurring); id., 96 S.Ct. at 827, 44 U.S.L.W. at 4118 (Powell, J., concurring). The possibility remains that where an arrest is made "in a private home or other place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy," id. 96 S.Ct. at 832, 44 U.S.L.W. at 4118, a warrant may be required even where probable cause to arrest exists. We cannot agree, however, that...