Commonwealth v. Turner

772 A.2d 970, 2001 Pa. Super. 79, 2001 Pa. Super. LEXIS 275

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 9, 2001
• Status: Published

Opinions

JOHNSON, J.:

¶ 1 In this appeal, we re-examine the meaning of “custodial interrogation” as it relates to an inebriated suspect being placed involuntarily in a police car and subsequently asked incriminating questions without being given Miranda warnings. We conclude that a suspect cannot be questioned under these circumstances without the benefit of having been given Miranda warnings and, therefore, any incriminating statements one makes under these conditions must be suppressed.

¶ 2 Zebue Turner appeals from the trial court’s order denying his Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Turner claims that the trial court erred in affirming the Philadelphia Municipal Court’s decision not to suppress Turner’s statement made in response to police questioning while he was seated in a police car, but not under arrest. Turner contends that his statement resulted from an illegal custodial interrogation in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). After reviewing the facts of this case, we conclude that the combination of uniformed police officers placing a suspect in a police car for an unknown amount of time and subsequently asking him potentially incriminating questions rises to the level of a custodial interrogation and, therefore, the police must provide Miranda warnings before questioning him. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying Turner’s Petition for Certiorari based on its review of the municipal court’s denial of Turner’s motion for suppression. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

¶ 3 On October 18, 1998, Police Officer Gabriel Torres responded in uniform to a radio call regarding an automobile accident. Upon arriving at the scene, Torres observed a white vehicle that apparently had struck a parked vehicle. Turner was leaning against the white vehicle, unsteady and barely able to stand. Turner appeared to be falling asleep and failed to respond to Torres’s questions. Torres did not smell alcohol on Turner’s breath. Torres placed Turner in the back of his police car. In compliance with his police department’s policy regarding suspected DUIs, Torres radioed for a supervisor to come to the scene. Sergeant Cassidy arrived on the scene, also in uniform. After discussing the situation with Torres, Cassidy opened the door of Torres’s police car, leaned in, and asked Turner if he had taken any narcotics. Cassidy did not apprise Turner of his rights under Miranda. Turner responded that he had taken cough syrup and several pills. Subsequently, the officers arrested Turner. However, Turner refused to consent to a blood test. Thereafter, the Commonwealth charged Turner with Driving Under the Influence. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731. Turner moved to suppress his statement to Cassidy, asserting that his detention and questioning by the officers violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Municipal Court held a hearing on Turner’s oral motion, and subsequently denied the motion. After a trial, the Municipal Court convicted Turner of Driving Under the Influence. The court sentenced Turner to not less than 48 hours nor more than one year in county prison, plus fines and costs. Turner filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas denied. Turner filed this appeal.

¶ 4 Turner presents us with the issue of whether the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the conversation between himself and Cassidy as the product of a custodial interrogation. Our standard of review for an appeal from a denial of a motion to suppress is as follows:

In an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress!,] our role is to determine whether the record supports the suppression court’s factual findings and the legitimacy of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings. In making this determination, we may consider only the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses and so much of the defense as, fairly read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontra-dicted. When the [evidence supports the factual findings of the suppression court], we may reverse only if there is an error in the legal conclusions drawn from those factual findings. As a reviewing court, we are therefore not bound by the legal conclusions of the suppression court and must reverse that court’s determination if the conclusions are in error or the law is misapplied.

Commonwealth v. Hayward, 756 A.2d 23, 26 (Pa.Super.2000) (citations omitted). After review of the record, we conclude that the facts of this case are not in dispute. Therefore, we will review the court’s decision to determine whether the court’s legal conclusions are in error.

¶ 5 In the section of the trial court’s opinion entitled “UNCONTRADICTED FACTS,” the court states that Torres placed Turner in the back of his police car in order to ensure Turner’s safety because Turner had dozed off again and almost fell against him. The trial court also found that “[a]t that point, [Turner] was not under arrest, although he was not free to leave.” Additionally, the trial court found that, after arriving at the scene, Cassidy opened the door of the police ear, leaned in and asked Turner if he had taken any narcotics, upon which Turner replied that he had ingested cough syrup and several pills. Without further explanation, the trial court determined that Turner was not subject to a “custodial interrogation” at the time he made the incriminating statements. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no requirement of Miranda warnings on the facts before it, and consequently, it denied Turner’s petition.

¶ 6 Turner argues that the combination of his confinement to the police car by Torres and his subjection to questioning by Cassidy as to whether he had taken any narcotics constituted a custodial interrogation. There are two separate requirements, custody and interrogation, that have to be found in order for Miranda to apply. See Commonwealth v. Whitehead, 427 Pa.Super. 362, 629 A.2d 142, 144 (1993). “[P]olice detentions in Pennsylvania become custodial when, under the totality of the circumstances, the conditions and/or duration of the detention become so coercive as to constitute the functional equivalent of arrest.” Commonwealth v. Ellis, 379 Pa.Super. 337, 549 A.2d 1323, 1332 (1988) (citing California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983)). “Interrogation is police conduct calculated to, expected to or likely to evoke admission.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 373 Pa.Super. 312, 541 A.2d 332, 336 (1988) (citation and quotations omitted). The overlying test to determine whether a person is being subjected to a custodial interrogation necessitating Miranda warnings is whether he is physically deprived of his freedom in any significant way or is placed in a situation in which he reasonably believes that his freedom of action or movement is restricted by such interrogation. See Commonwealth v. Chacko, 500 Pa. 571, 459 A.2d 311, 314 (1983). “The standard for determining whether police have initiated a custodial interrogation or an arrest is an objective one, with due consideration given to the reasonable impression conveyed to the person interrogated rather than the strictly subjective view of the troopers or the person being seized.” Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 535 Pa. 210, 634 A.2d 1078, 1085-86 (1993). The factors that the court considers to determine whether there has been a custodial interrogation include: the basis for the detention; its length; its location; whether the suspect was transported against his or her will, how far and why; whether restraints were used; whether the law enforcement officer showed, threatened or used force; and the investigative methods employed to confirm or dispel suspicions. See Commonwealth v. Peters, 434 Pa.Super. 268, 642 A.2d 1126, 1130 (1994) (en banc).

¶ 7 Police detentions become custodial when, under the totality of the circumstances, the conditions and/or duration of the detention become so coercive as to become the functional equivalent of an arrest. See Ellis, 549 A.2d at 1332. “Arrest is an act that indicates an intention to take a person into custody or that subjects the person to the will and control of the person making the arrest.” Commonwealth v. Gwynn, 555 Pa. 86, 723 A.2d 143, 148 (1998). We will now review the facts of the instant case to determine whether those facts support the trial court’s legal conclusion that the events that occurred did not constitute a custodial interrogation.

¶ 8 Torres testified that he “put” Turner into his police car, not that he asked Turner if he wanted to sit in the car or offered the back seat as a place to rest. Turner sat in the car while Torres radioed Cassidy and waited for him to arrive. Torres also testified that Cassidy had to open the car door in order to speak to Turner, which suggests that Torres closed the door after he put Turner inside the car. There is no suggestion in the record that Turner closed the door himself. Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Turner was physically deprived of his freedom to a level that was the functional equivalent of being arrested and, therefore, was in custody. After review of the evidence, we are unable to conclude that the facts support the trial court’s conclusion that Turner was not in custody at the time of the questioning.

¶ 9 Next, we look at the issue of interrogation. The United States Supreme Court’s intent in Miranda was to “spare the accused from having to reveal, directly or indirectly, his knowledge of facts relating him to the offense or from having to share his thoughts and beliefs with the Government.” Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 596, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990). An interrogation for the purposes of Miranda “refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of police (other than normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” Whitehead, 629 A.2d at 145. Cassidy, by opening the car door, leaning into the car and questioning Turner regarding whether he had taken any narcotics, was eliciting information. As a trained officer who observed Turner’s physical condition, Cas-sidy should have known that Turner’s response might yield an incriminating statement that would lead to Turner’s arrest for driving under the influence. See id. Turner did not volunteer that he had taken cough syrup and several pills; a uniformed officer specifically questioned him while he was confined to the police car where another uniformed officer had placed him. We conclude that the combination of Torres putting Turner involuntarily into the police car and Cassidy questioning Turner regarding his drug use while standing in the police car doorway created a custodial interrogation.

¶ 10 The Commonwealth argues that the police officers’ treatment of Turner did not rise to the level of “custody” for the purposes of finding a custodial interrogation. We conclude that because the Commonwealth does not discuss the interrogation element of custodial interrogation, it concedes that Sergeant Cassidy’s question to Turner did constitute an interrogation. In support of its argument against finding custody, the Commonwealth cites Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9, 109 S.Ct. 205, 102 L.Ed.2d 172 (1988); Commonwealth v. White, 358 Pa.Super. 120, 516 A.2d 1211 (1986); Commonwealth v. Ellis, 379 Pa.Super. 337, 549 A.2d 1323 (1998) and Commonwealth v. Gwynn, 555 Pa. 86, 723 A.2d 143 (1998). We find these eases readily distinguishable.

¶ 11 The Commonwealth asserts that a suspect is not in custody when a police officer makes a traffic stop and asks the driver basic investigative questions. However, such encounters are limited to “ordinary” traffic stops. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) (likening an ordinary traffic stop to an investigative detention). See also Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9, 10, 109 S.Ct. 205, 102 L.Ed.2d 172 (1988) (concluding that an ordinary traffic stop during which a police officer asks a driver a modest number of ques tions and requests him to perform a simple balancing test at a location visible to passing motorists did not involve “custody” for purposes of Miranda rule). A traffic stop during which the detainee is involuntarily placed in the back of a police car with the door closed certainly is not an “ordinary” traffic stop. In addition, “[i]f a motorist who has been detained pursuant to a traffic stop thereafter is subjected to treatment that renders him “in custody” for practical purposes, he will be entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda.” Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138. As we have already determined, the treatment afforded Turner by Torres and Cassidy rose to the level of being “in custody,” and, therefore, necessitated the recitation of Miranda warnings before interrogating him.

¶ 12 The Commonwealth argues that the fact that a suspect is placed in a police car and may not be free to leave does not mean that he is restrained to the degree associated with formal arrest. The Commonwealth supports this argument by citing Commonwealth v. White, 358 Pa.Super. 120, 516 A.2d 1211 (1986), as authority for its conclusion that Turner was not in custody at the time of the questioning. However, White addresses the issue of investigative detention, not custodial interrogation. See White, 516 A.2d at 1212. Therefore, we do not find White controlling. The Commonwealth also cites Commonwealth v. Gwynn, 555 Pa. 86, 723 A.2d 143 (1998), as support for the same proposition. In Gwynn, our Supreme Court determined that Gwynn’s statements were admissible based on reasons that had nothing to do with a custodial interrogation; the Court concluded that Gywnn’s first statement could not be suppressed based on its content and that his second statement could not be suppressed because it was made after the officers gave him Miranda warnings. See Gwynn, 723 A.2d at 149-50. Therefore, Gwynn also is inapplicable to the instant case.

¶ 13 Finally, the Commonwealth argues that the instant case is “virtually indistinguishable from [Commonwealth v.] Ellis,” 379 Pa.Super. 337, 549 A.2d 1323 (1998). In Commonwealth v. Ellis, the defendant had been taken to the hospital for treatment for his second-degree burns caused by a fire that he was eventually convicted of starting. Ellis motioned to suppress statements he had made to a police officer while at the hospital as having been the product of a custodial interrogation in violation of Miranda. Our Court concluded that Ellis was questioned in an open area of a hospital in view of hospital personnel. The police questioned Ellis briefly regarding the occurrence that caused Ellis’s injuries. In addition, the police did not arrest Ellis before, during or after the questioning. The Commonwealth points out that in Ellis, our Court concluded that “[t]he only restraints upon appellant’s freedom were those caused by his medical condition, as opposed to any action on the part of the police,” and suggests that Ellis’s physical debility precluded suppression. See Ellis, 549 A.2d at 1333. The Commonwealth asserts that the situation in the instant case is the same as in Ellis; it argues that the only restraint on Turner’s freedom stemmed from his own inebriation. Therefore, the Commonwealth urges that we should conclude that Turner’s statements too should not be suppressed.

¶ 14 The Commonwealth misconstrues Ellis. We did not conclude that Ellis was not subjected to a custodial interrogation merely by reason of physical inability to leave. Rather, we reached our conclusion that the statements made were not subject to suppression on the fact that there was no behavior by the police that could have been construed as a custodial interrogation. See Ellis, 549 A.2d at 1333. Therefore, we cannot adopt the Commonwealth’s suggested conclusion that there was no custodial interrogation because Turner was unable to leave the scene. We base our conclusions, as in Ellis, on the actions of the police officers. We conclude that the combination of placing Turner in the police car, shutting the door, leaving him there until Cassidy arrived, and Cassidy questioning him while blocking the doorway and leaning into the backseat with Torres behind him, compels the conclusion that Turner reasonably could have presumed that he was not free to leave. Contrary to the Commonwealth’s argument, we conclude that the facts of Ellis, which describe a situation where there was insubstantial communication between the officer and the defendant prior to his becoming a suspect, further our conclusion that, in light of the behavior of the officers towards Turner, Turner was subject to a custodial interrogation. We conclude, accordingly, that because the officers did not issue Miranda warnings before questioning Turner, Turner’s statement to Cassidy should have been suppressed.

¶ 15 Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Turner was the subject of a custodial interrogation and, therefore, should have been given his Miranda warnings before being questioned. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred in reaffirming the Municipal Court’s conclusion that Turner’s statement should not be suppressed based on a violation of Miranda. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Turner’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

¶ 16 Order REVERSED. Case REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

¶ 17 LALLY-GREEN, J. joins the majority Opinion and files a Concurring Opinion in which KELLY, JOHNSON, JOYCE and MUSMANNO, JJ. have joined.

¶ 18 KELLY and MUSMANNO, JJ. also join in the majority Opinion.