Com. v. Fluker, J.
Com. v. Fluker, J. No. 1839 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 17, 2017Background
- July 30, 2013: Reading PD responded to a home where Children and Youth were taking custody of children; officers were told Jamel Fluker had an outstanding bench warrant.
- Fluker arrived later; when he identified himself he was handcuffed and officers sought to verify the warrant.
- While detained and handcuffed (and before warrant confirmation), Officer Ring testified Fluker volunteered that he had crack cocaine; officers retrieved drugs from his pocket.
- Fluker was placed in a police wagon and released about 30–90 minutes later when the bench warrant could not be confirmed.
- Fluker filed an omnibus pretrial (suppression) motion in April 2016 seeking suppression of the statement and drugs as fruits of custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings; after procedural skirmishes the suppression court granted the motion in October 2016.
- Commonwealth appealed, arguing (1) the encounter was an investigative detention (so no Miranda required) and (2) the suppression motion was untimely and refiled beyond Rules 579/581, prejudicing the Commonwealth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Fluker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fluker was subjected to custodial interrogation requiring Miranda before his inculpatory statement | The detention was an investigative stop supported by reasonable suspicion; Miranda was not required because the detention was brief, no force used, and events occurred on scene | Fluker argued he was effectively under arrest (handcuffed, moved to sidewalk and police wagon, detained for extended time) and thus entitled to Miranda warnings | Court held detention was the functional equivalent of arrest (handcuffs, movement, time in wagon); statement and seized drugs suppressed |
| Whether the trial court erred in allowing untimely filing/re-filing of the omnibus pretrial (suppression) motion under Pa.R.Crim.P. 579/581 | Commonwealth claimed Fluker’s delay (motion relisted >2 years after complaint) prejudiced prosecution and was untimely | Fluker asserted reasonable excuse for missing initial hearing; court allowed relist in interests of justice | Issue waived: Commonwealth failed to preserve timeliness objection in suppression court; even on merits court would have exercised discretion to allow relist |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 105 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review on suppression appeal; categories of police–citizen encounters)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 53 A.3d 889 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures)
- Commonwealth v. Garvin, 50 A.3d 694 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Miranda required only for custodial interrogation)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 24 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Super. 2011) (totality-of-circumstances test for custodial interrogation; factors to decide functional equivalent of arrest)
- Commonwealth v. Mannion, 725 A.2d 196 (Pa. Super. 1999) (same custodial interrogation framework)
- Commonwealth v. Cooley, 118 A.3d 370 (Pa. 2015) (use of restraints/handcuffs is hallmark of formal arrest; custody analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Ellis, 662 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 1995) (investigative detention context; distinguished here because Ellis defendants were not handcuffed)
- Commonwealth v. Freeman, 150 A.3d 32 (Pa. Super. 2016) (investigative detention precedent relied on by Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Colavita, 993 A.2d 874 (Pa. 2010) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Melendez-Rodriguez, 856 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Rule 1925(b) statement cannot cure failure to preserve issue)
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 141 A.3d 512 (Pa. Super. 2016) (new theory of relief cannot be raised first on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Long, 753 A.2d 272 (Pa. Super. 2000) (trial court discretion to extend omnibus motion deadline in interests of justice)