OPINION OF THE COURT
JONES, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal1 by the Commonwealth from [602]*602the Order of Judge Juanita Kidd Stout of the Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County suppressing the confession of William Dickerson, appellee, as the result of an unconstitutional arrest.
On October 5, 1974, at 4:45 p. m. William Askew, age seventeen, was stabbed to death in the rear yard of a home on Wyoming Avenue in Philadelphia. That same evening, Detective Porter, twice went to appellee’s home in an attempt to question him concerning the stabbing. Appellee was not home and Porter left word with his mother asking that appellee come to Police Headquarters for questioning. On October 6, appellee went to the Headquarters and after questioning was released. Two days later, appellee was taken to Headquarters by police officers for a second round of questioning. After nine hours of intermittent interrogation, appellee was released.
Detective Porter then directed his investigative efforts elsewhere. On October 9, he interviewed William Fowler, age fourteen, and Ronald Allen, age eighteen. Both witnesses gave a signed written statement, wherein they eaéh recounted that fifteen minutes prior to the killing, they saw Dickerson, Askew, and Michael Beatty walking together in the direction where the stabbing occurred.
Michael Beatty, age nineteen, was then questioned on October 14. He was given his Miranda warnings and agreed to answer questions. The first interrogation resulted in a statement which Detective Porter characterized as incomplete and false based upon other information already gathered. Beatty then consented to a polygraph examination, the results of which seemed to confirm Porter’s suspicions. Beatty was interviewed a second time and gave a four page statement which he read and signed. This statement stated that Beatty had witnessed Dickerson stab Askew and corroborated portions of other information Porter had in his possession. Beatty was later charged with hindering apprehension or [603]*603prosecution, this based upon his first falsified statement. However, Beatty was not charged as a co-defendant.
In addition to the above information, Porter had gathered signed statements from three other people who knew appellee. Each witness said he or she had heard that the appellee had stabbed Askew.2
[604]*604Armed with the statements of six identified witnesses: (1) two of whom placed the appellee and the eyewitness with the victim near the scene of the crime just prior to the stabbing; (2) three of whom had heard that the appellee had committed the stabbing, and (3) the statement of an eyewitness who said he saw the appellee stab Askew, Porter applied to Judge Wood for an arrest warrant. Judge Wood issued the warrant and Dickerson was arrested on October 17, 1974, at 1:10 p. m. Dickerson arrived at Homicide Headquarters at 1:35 p. m. and after receiving his Miranda warnings, he confessed to the crime. Dickerson read and signed his statement at 3:02 p. m., one and one-half hours after his arrival at Headquarters.
A motion to- suppress the evidence was filed on January 3, 1975, primarily challenging the voluntariness [605]*605of appellee’s confession. A six day suppression hearing followed. At the conclusion thereof, Judge Stout issued an opinion declaring the arrest warrant and subsequent arrest invalid. She found that the warrant was issued upon insufficient information to establish probable cause and appellee’s confession was suppressed as a fruit thereof. This conclusion being unsupported by the findings of fact and the applicable legal authority, we reverse.
To be constitutionally valid, an arrest must be based on probable cause. U.S.Const. Amend. IV; Pa. Const. Art. I, § 8 P.S. Probable cause has been defined as those facts and circumstances available at the time of the arrest which would justify a reasonably prudent man in the belief that a crime has been committed and that the individual arrested was the probable perpetrator. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); Commonwealth v. Bailey, 460 Pa. 498, 333 A.2d 883 (1975); Commonwealth v. Jones, 457 Pa. 423, 322 A.2d 119 (1974); Commonwealth v. Daniels, 455 Pa. 552, 317 A.2d 237 (1974); Commonwealth v. Mamon, 449 Pa. 249, 297 A.2d 471 (1972); Commonwealth v. Brayboy, 431 Pa. 365, 246 A.2d 675 (1968). The test is not one of certainties but rather one of probabilities dealing with the considerations of everyday life. It is not equivalent to the “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applied at trial. See Commonwealth v. Jones, supra; Commonwealth v. Williams, 235 Pa.Super. 347, 341 A.2d 201 (1975), and cases cited supra. Necessarily the test for probable cause is the same whether or not a warrant is present, since an arresting officer must be aware of information sufficient for the issuance of a warrant at the moment he makes an arrest. Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L. Ed.2d 306 (1971); McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967); see also In Re Betrand, 451 Pa. 381, 303 A.2d 486 (1973). Analogies
[606]*606therefore to cases involving a warrantless arrest are appropriate in the instant case.
In reaching her decision, Judge Stout relied upon Commonwealth v. Bailey, supra; Commonwealth v. Daniels, supra; Commonwealth v. Jeffries, 454 Pa. 320, 311 A.2d 914 (1973); and Commonwealth v. Mamon, supra. A review of these cases indicates however that they are not factually similar to the instant case.
In Bailey, the invalid arrest was based solely upon the statement of an unidentified informer placing Bailey in the neighborhood on the night of the crime with a .22 caliber revolver. No direct evidence linking Bailey with the offense was present; nor was the reliability of the informant established in accordance with 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).
In Daniels,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION OF THE COURT
JONES, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal1 by the Commonwealth from [602]*602the Order of Judge Juanita Kidd Stout of the Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County suppressing the confession of William Dickerson, appellee, as the result of an unconstitutional arrest.
On October 5, 1974, at 4:45 p. m. William Askew, age seventeen, was stabbed to death in the rear yard of a home on Wyoming Avenue in Philadelphia. That same evening, Detective Porter, twice went to appellee’s home in an attempt to question him concerning the stabbing. Appellee was not home and Porter left word with his mother asking that appellee come to Police Headquarters for questioning. On October 6, appellee went to the Headquarters and after questioning was released. Two days later, appellee was taken to Headquarters by police officers for a second round of questioning. After nine hours of intermittent interrogation, appellee was released.
Detective Porter then directed his investigative efforts elsewhere. On October 9, he interviewed William Fowler, age fourteen, and Ronald Allen, age eighteen. Both witnesses gave a signed written statement, wherein they eaéh recounted that fifteen minutes prior to the killing, they saw Dickerson, Askew, and Michael Beatty walking together in the direction where the stabbing occurred.
Michael Beatty, age nineteen, was then questioned on October 14. He was given his Miranda warnings and agreed to answer questions. The first interrogation resulted in a statement which Detective Porter characterized as incomplete and false based upon other information already gathered. Beatty then consented to a polygraph examination, the results of which seemed to confirm Porter’s suspicions. Beatty was interviewed a second time and gave a four page statement which he read and signed. This statement stated that Beatty had witnessed Dickerson stab Askew and corroborated portions of other information Porter had in his possession. Beatty was later charged with hindering apprehension or [603]*603prosecution, this based upon his first falsified statement. However, Beatty was not charged as a co-defendant.
In addition to the above information, Porter had gathered signed statements from three other people who knew appellee. Each witness said he or she had heard that the appellee had stabbed Askew.2
[604]*604Armed with the statements of six identified witnesses: (1) two of whom placed the appellee and the eyewitness with the victim near the scene of the crime just prior to the stabbing; (2) three of whom had heard that the appellee had committed the stabbing, and (3) the statement of an eyewitness who said he saw the appellee stab Askew, Porter applied to Judge Wood for an arrest warrant. Judge Wood issued the warrant and Dickerson was arrested on October 17, 1974, at 1:10 p. m. Dickerson arrived at Homicide Headquarters at 1:35 p. m. and after receiving his Miranda warnings, he confessed to the crime. Dickerson read and signed his statement at 3:02 p. m., one and one-half hours after his arrival at Headquarters.
A motion to- suppress the evidence was filed on January 3, 1975, primarily challenging the voluntariness [605]*605of appellee’s confession. A six day suppression hearing followed. At the conclusion thereof, Judge Stout issued an opinion declaring the arrest warrant and subsequent arrest invalid. She found that the warrant was issued upon insufficient information to establish probable cause and appellee’s confession was suppressed as a fruit thereof. This conclusion being unsupported by the findings of fact and the applicable legal authority, we reverse.
To be constitutionally valid, an arrest must be based on probable cause. U.S.Const. Amend. IV; Pa. Const. Art. I, § 8 P.S. Probable cause has been defined as those facts and circumstances available at the time of the arrest which would justify a reasonably prudent man in the belief that a crime has been committed and that the individual arrested was the probable perpetrator. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); Commonwealth v. Bailey, 460 Pa. 498, 333 A.2d 883 (1975); Commonwealth v. Jones, 457 Pa. 423, 322 A.2d 119 (1974); Commonwealth v. Daniels, 455 Pa. 552, 317 A.2d 237 (1974); Commonwealth v. Mamon, 449 Pa. 249, 297 A.2d 471 (1972); Commonwealth v. Brayboy, 431 Pa. 365, 246 A.2d 675 (1968). The test is not one of certainties but rather one of probabilities dealing with the considerations of everyday life. It is not equivalent to the “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applied at trial. See Commonwealth v. Jones, supra; Commonwealth v. Williams, 235 Pa.Super. 347, 341 A.2d 201 (1975), and cases cited supra. Necessarily the test for probable cause is the same whether or not a warrant is present, since an arresting officer must be aware of information sufficient for the issuance of a warrant at the moment he makes an arrest. Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L. Ed.2d 306 (1971); McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967); see also In Re Betrand, 451 Pa. 381, 303 A.2d 486 (1973). Analogies
[606]*606therefore to cases involving a warrantless arrest are appropriate in the instant case.
In reaching her decision, Judge Stout relied upon Commonwealth v. Bailey, supra; Commonwealth v. Daniels, supra; Commonwealth v. Jeffries, 454 Pa. 320, 311 A.2d 914 (1973); and Commonwealth v. Mamon, supra. A review of these cases indicates however that they are not factually similar to the instant case.
In Bailey, the invalid arrest was based solely upon the statement of an unidentified informer placing Bailey in the neighborhood on the night of the crime with a .22 caliber revolver. No direct evidence linking Bailey with the offense was present; nor was the reliability of the informant established in accordance with 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).
In Daniels, the appellant had been arrested based on a witness’s statement that he saw two young men acting suspiciously in the area at the time of the homicide and an anonymous telephone tip that “deadleg” had committed the crime. The witness’s statement contained a very general description of one of the two young men which description the arresting officer admitted fit three young men in the area including Daniels. This witness did not indicate that the person described had done anything criminal. Moreover, the reliability of the anonymous phone caller was never constitutionally established. The two bits of information were found insufficient, individually or jointly, to establish probable cause.
In Jeffries, the appellant was arrested after he quickened his pace upon seeing two officers in an unmarked car observing him and then broke into a run when the officers began to pursue him on foot. The Court decided that there was no indication that appellant had committed a crime and reversed the conviction as a result.
[607]*607The final case cited by Judge Stout was Commonwealth v. Mamon, supra. In Mamón, the question presented was whether or not the police officers had probable cause to search the appellant’s home. This Court found that there was probable cause for the search and affirmed Mamon’s conviction. The information held sufficient for probable cause to search consisted of: (1) two statements from two unidentified witnesses who said they had seen the appellant disguised as a man enter the victim’s home where the homicide occurred just prior to the murder; and (2) the statement of one of Mamon’s victims who identified Mamón as the perpetrator.3
In Mamón, the Court held:
“ . . . . Although the information supplied by one questionable source may be insufficient, the probability is extremely small that a second independent source would supply identical information if it were not probably accurate.
acting together, each complements the other sufficiently to produce the reliability necessary to create probable cause.”
449 Pa. at 259, 297 A.2d at 477.
Each of the above four cases are distinguishable on their facts from the present case. Three of the four deal with unidentified informers and the problem of validating their testimony as required by Spinelli and Aguilar. The instant case presents no such problem. All six witnesses were identified and gave formal statements to the police. Each story, to some degree, repeated information given in the other statements, thereby bolstering their [608]*608reliability. The fourth case, Jeffries, is so different on its face that further discussion is not necessary.
Our research has not uncovered a single case in which an arrest based upon evidence of the quantity and quality of that present here, was found to be violative of the Constitution.
Judge Stout, in conclusion of law number two,4 stated:
“2. Even though Michael Beatty was an alleged witness, the eyewitness status, per se, does not establish reliability, Commonwealth v. Mamon, 449 Pa. 249, 297 A.2d 471 (1972). Moreover, whatever reliability Beatty may have had was discredited by Detective Porter himself, who was so convinced of his unreliability that he had him charged with hindering apprehension or prosecution.”
This conclusion does not follow logically. Beatty was charged with the hindering offense for the first statement he made which Detective Porter believed to be false because of contradictory statements Porter had already gathered. Beatty’s second statement, to the contrary, fell right into line with the other statements giving it independent indicia of reliability. The later statement was not discredited by the charges lodged. Judge Stout also characterized the statements of the three witnesses who had heard that Dickerson had stabbed Askew as neighborhood gossip. This we do not dispute; these statements were clearly hearsay. However, hearsay evidence is considered valid information in testing probable cause to arrest. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S. Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); Brinegar v. United States, supra; In re Betrand, supra.5 We agree that [609]*609standing alone the three hearsay statements would be insufficient. Also, the two witnesses’ statements placing Dickerson at or near the scene with the victim just prior to the stabbing, alone, might be insufficient. However, those five statements coupled with the identified eyewitness’s statement that he saw Dickerson stab Askew were clearly sufficient to justify a reasonably prudent man in the belief that Dickerson had stabbed Askew.
In Brinegar v. United, States, supra, the United States Supreme Court stated,
“The rule of probable is a practical, nontechnical conception affording the best compromise that has been found for accommodating . . . often opposing interests. Requiring more would unduly hamper law enforcement. To allow less would be to leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the officer’s whim or caprice.”
338 U.S. at 176, 69 S.Ct. at 1311. The probability that Dickerson stabbed Askew having been established by the information gathered by Detective Porter, the subsequent arrest of Dickerson was not left to the whim or caprice of the officer. To permit the lower court’s decision to stand would therefore unduly hamper law enforcement, a result not intended by the concept of probable cause.
We therefore reverse and remand.
ROBERTS, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which MANDERINO, J., joins.
EAGEN, J., concurs in the result.