Commonwealth v. Rushing
71 A.3d 939
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- On July 17, 2008 Randal R. Rushing attacked occupants of the Collier/Hintz home: three people were killed (Justin Berrios, Leslie Collier, Dustin Hintz) and several others were bound, robbed and assaulted; stolen items later appeared in a Wilkes‑Barre residence where Rushing was located and arrested.
- Police obtained a court order to obtain real‑time cell‑site location information (ping) for Rushing’s phone, narrowed his location to within ~300 feet, identified a residence (Samantha’s stolen car observed there), obtained a search warrant, and arrested Rushing at that house.
- At the police station Rushing was held in a holding cell without socks/shoes (they were evidence) and interviewed after Detective Pappas read Miranda warnings; Rushing signed a Miranda waiver and confessed.
- Rushing was convicted after a non‑jury trial of multiple counts including first‑ and third‑degree murder, second‑degree murder (based on kidnapping), kidnapping, robbery and indecent assault; sentenced to three consecutive life sentences plus additional terms.
- On appeal the court affirmed most convictions but reversed the kidnapping convictions and the related second‑degree murder convictions, vacated the kidnapping sentence, and addressed suppression and evidentiary challenges (Miranda waiver/confession, legality of real‑time cell pinging under the Constitution and Wiretap Act, sufficiency for kidnapping, admission of jealousy/bad‑acts evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Miranda waiver / voluntariness of confession | Waiver involuntary because Rushing was detained without socks/shoes, was denied access to a public defender who appeared at the station, and interrogation included religious appeals and confrontational tactics | Waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary; Rushing never invoked his right to counsel; detective reading warnings, providing booties, and obtaining signed waiver satisfied Miranda | Waiver and confession admissible. Lack of socks/shoes and counsel’s presence did not vitiate waiver; religious appeals and victim photos did not render confession involuntary (totality of circumstances) |
| Legality of real‑time cell‑site ping (Fourth Amendment & Wiretap Act) | Ping/real‑time tracking without a warrant violated Article I, §8 of the PA Constitution and the (then) Wiretap Act because probable cause was required | No reasonable expectation of privacy in cell‑site signals; the prior Wiretap Act did not govern real‑time CSLI; court order based on specific and articulable facts sufficed; exigent circumstances existed | Under Pennsylvania Constitution user has reasonable expectation of privacy in real‑time cell‑site location because tracking can reveal interior of homes; probable cause is required absent exigent circumstances. Here probable cause + exigency existed, so ping was lawful; even if error, admission was harmless given overwhelming evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for kidnapping and second‑degree murder (place of isolation / substantial distance) | Victims were restrained in their own home; movement was incidental to the murders and discovery/rescue was likely (husband expected home) — no ‘‘place of isolation’’ or substantial distance | Victims were bound, terrorized at gunpoint, and prevented from seeking help — confinement satisfied place of isolation and supported kidnapping | Convictions for kidnapping and the related second‑degree (felony‑murder) convictions reversed. Court concluded confinement in victims’ own home was incidental to murder/robbery and did not make discovery unlikely; statute must be strictly construed |
| Admission of jealousy / prior bad acts evidence | Testimony about Rushing’s jealousy of Samantha’s male acquaintances was unfair propensity evidence and prejudicial | Evidence went to motive (Rushing said he wanted to "give Samantha something she'll remember") and was probative of motive for the killings | Admission of jealousy evidence was proper under Pa.R.E. 404(b) for motive; probative value outweighed prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (police knowledge of an attorney’s attempt to contact defendant does not automatically invalidate a Miranda waiver)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (established reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (electronic tracking that reveals presence inside a home can implicate Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (governmental use of tracking technology implicates privacy interests)
- Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374 (Pennsylvania recognizes robust privacy protections under Article I, §8)
- Commonwealth v. Arroyo, 555 Pa. 125 (Pennsylvania follows Moran re: Miranda and counsel access)
- In re T.B., 11 A.3d 500 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard of review for Miranda waiver and voluntariness)
- Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 455 Pa. Super. 152 (kidnapping: ‘‘place of isolation’’ = effective isolation from protections of society)
- Commonwealth v. Hook, 355 Pa. Super. 10 (limitations on treating confinement in one’s own residence as kidnapping)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 264 Pa. Super. 118 (kidnapping requires substantial movement or confinement that increases risk of harm)
- Commonwealth v. Glover, 446 Pa. 492 (prior threats/jealousy evidence admissible to show motive)