Commonwealth v. Brown, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
January 30, 1970
James A. Stranahan, III, with him D. W. Patterson, for appellant.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE COHEN, January 30, 1970:
Appellant, Donald Brown, was found guilty of second degree murder and is appealing the trial court‘s judgment of sentence entered after denial of his motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. As the basis for his appeal, appellant contends that the Commonwealth did not present a sufficiently strong case to merit consideration by the jury, that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict, and that the court below erred in refusing to suppress evidence concerning a gun, bullets and holster obtained from appellant and found to have been used in the commission of the crime.
Appellant‘s major contention is the latter one, and as to it the facts are as follows: On January 19, 1968, John Burke, Chief of Police of Grove City, met with State Police Officer Thomas Petrovich to discuss several pending cases; the Lumley case, the Dillaman case, and the Coulson case (the one with which this Court is now concerned). Burke told Petrovich that he was interested in locating the appellant to discuss with him various aspects of at least two of the three cases. Appellant was located the next day in his New Castle apartment, and the interrogation of Brown took place in the police car because Brown did not want his wife to see police in the apartment. Appellant received his Miranda warnings and then discussed with the officers certain aspects of the Lumley case. After about twenty minutes Mrs. Brown appeared, and the parties began discussing the difficult financial situation in which the Browns found themselves. Mrs. Brown had been attempting to sell their stereo to obtain money
On cross-examination Petrovich stated he wanted to have ballistic tests performed because Coulson had been shot with a .32 calibre revolver and Brown had volunteered that his gun was of that type. At the time of the taking of the gun from appellant, neither officer was investigating the Coulson murder and neither felt he had enough evidence to secure a search warrant. At most they had a suspicion that Brown might have been involved. The ballistic tests showed that appellant‘s gun was the weapon from which the bullets that killed Coulson were fired.
Appellant contends that the manner in which the gun reached the hands of the police violated the
The Commonwealth does not agree that this is the proper framework in which to place this case. It asserts that the situation is governed by the decisions in Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206 (1966); Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966); Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (1963); and United States v. Haden, 397 F. 2d 460 (7th Cir. 1968). Basically those cases involve undercover work by government or police officials and stand for the proposition that the
The problem for this Court is to determine the permissible extent of police power in light of these United States Supreme Court decisions. Lewis (involving sales of marijuana to a federal narcotics agent), Hoffa (involving the planting of a government informer in defendant‘s hotel room to overhear conversations), and Lopez (involving an attempted bribe of an Internal Revenue agent) clearly do not require the police to be completely open and truthful as to their identity and purpose when dealing with suspects. They recognize that undercover work is an essential weapon in the police arsenal. In this case the “undercover” work was not as to Petrovich‘s identity as a policeman but rather as to his motives in offering to sell the gun. It appears to us that there is no real difference between this deception and those found permissible in Lewis, Hoffa and Lopez. In all three of those cases the defendants were deceived as to the use that was going to be made of the things (in Lewis, narcotics; in Hoffa, words; in Lopez, money and words) transmitted to the government agents, and in reliance on that mistaken belief “voluntarily” made that transmittal. “Neither this Court nor any member of it has ever expressed the view that the
The fact that Petrovich did exactly what he told appellant he was going to do is not the basis of this decision. The United States Supreme Court has not grounded the right of the police to use deceptive devices on the necessity of the agent‘s literally telling the truth to the suspect. Regardless of whether the agent tells a lie or only a half-truth, a deception is still taking place, and it is the validity of that deception as a police device that is at issue.
Also the fact that appellant had no rights in the gun after its sale is not the crucial factor because the question is the validity of the steps that led to the relinquishment of rights in the property. It is the determination that those steps were constitutional that leads to the conclusion that the defendant has no right in the property.
It is not necessary for this Court to determine what deceptive devices are improper in light of Lewis, Hoffa and Lopez although that is a very difficult question as the United States Supreme Court seems to have granted broad powers to the police. The Supreme Court, 1966 Term, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 112, 191-4 (1967). It is enough to state that in light of those three United States Supreme Court decisions, the police officer‘s (Petrovich‘s) tactics were constitutional, and the court below properly refused to suppress evidence of the gun, holster and bullets.1
The evidence indicates that appellant had a bread route that included the deceased‘s isolated country home, that appellant had a great need for money and that the victim‘s wallet was missing. The Commonwealth also showed that Brown, by his own admission, travelled from New Castle to Slippery Rock on the day in question thus putting him only fifteen miles from the scene of the crime. The most damaging evidence concerns the murder weapon. Appellant purchased it in New Castle only a few hours before the murder occurred, and it was the testimony of the State Police expert that the fatal shots came from that weapon. Brown testified that he gave possession of the gun to his brother, Sam, the afternoon before the murder, but Sam testified that he did not have the gun during the period in question. The jury was justified in disbelieving appellant‘s version. Appellant also attempted to prove his whereabouts on the night of the
The judgment of sentence is affirmed.
DISSENTING OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS:
This case rests unhappily between two principles of law, both of which are at once equally weighty, apparently logical, and infuriatingly difficult to resolve with each other. The facts, ably stated in greater detail by the majority, are briefly as follows. Donald Brown was suspected of involvement in several recent crimes in and around Grove City, Pennsylvania, and it was determined by local law enforcement officials that he ought to be questioned. During the course of the questioning it was established that Brown was both in need of money and in possession of a recently purchased .32 calibre revolver. One of the officers questioning Brown was aware that just such a weapon had been involved in a recent murder, and suggested to Brown that he might sell the revolver to get some money. After several such suggestions and an offer by the officer to negotiate the sale himself, Brown turned the gun over to the officer for that purpose. The officer did in fact sell the weapon (to the dealer who had originally sold the gun to Brown) on Brown‘s account, but he then “borrowed” the gun from the purchaser and had ballistics tests run. The question then is whether the manner in which the Commonwealth came into possession of this weapon violated the
The first relevant line of cases hold that the
In Gouled an old business acquaintance of the defendant was contacted by the police and asked to conduct a search of the defendant‘s office. Gaining admission by virtue of his acquaintance with the defendant, the informer proceeded to conduct an extensive search of the office when the defendant left the room. The Court said: “The prohibition of the
There are two cases decided under the rationale of Gouled which are strikingly similar to the one before us now. In United States v. Lipshitz, 132 F. Supp. 519 (E.D. N.Y. 1955), a revenue agent was in the process of making a regular audit of the defendant‘s books. Before he had concluded the examination, which was being performed with the consent of the defendant, a “special agent” got in touch with him and, explaining that the defendant was suspected of possible criminal violations, instructed him to conduct a more extensive audit. The court held that the information “seized” during the expanded examination was obtained in violation of the
Even more on point is United States v. Ong Goon Sing, 149 F. Supp. 267 (S.D. N.Y. 1957). Sing, an immigrant who was suspected of having entered the country illegally, had filed a court action seeking to establish the American citizenship of his two children, both of whom were then living in Hong Kong. An immigration service agent visited Sing, purporting to seek information relevant to this lawsuit. Actually, the agent was interested in the legality of Sing‘s presence in the country. The agent was permitted to examine some papers in Sing‘s possession, and took some with him with Sing‘s consent. At Sing‘s deportation trial the papers and other evidence obtained by the agent were suppressed. “. . . [T]he movant‘s surrender of that portion of the papers which he claimed to own was further tainted by the representation that they would be used for his benefit and the concealment by
Of all the cases which discuss violations by deceit of the
If the cases discussed so far were the only ones applicable there would be no problem with the instant one. They are not. Another line of cases, three of which are fairly recent Supreme Court decisions, hold that the government may indeed employ certain deceptive practices.
In Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S. Ct. 1381 (1963), a federal tax investigator was propositioned by an individual he was investigating. After reporting the bribe offer to his superiors the investigator agreed to a second meeting with the subject, at which meeting he recorded the substance of the conversation. He was permitted to testify at the trial. The Court did not enter into an extensive discussion of the
In Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 87 S. Ct. 408 (1966), an informer worked his way into the Hoffa entourage during the time that Hoffa was being tried for a violation of the Taft-Hartley Act. Hoffa was subsequently convicted of attempting to fix the jury in the Taft-Hartley trial, largely on evidence supplied by the informer. The conviction was affirmed by a seven man Supreme Court, four in the majority, one in dissent, and two of the opinion that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted. In discussing the
The third case is Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 87 S. Ct. 424 (1966), decided the same day as Hoffa. In this case an undercover federal narcotics agent called the home of a suspected marijuana seller to inquire about purchasing a quantity of that drug. The seller acknowledged that he was able to fulfill the agent‘s needs. The agent then drove to the seller‘s residence, identified himself as the caller, and the transaction was completed. After one more similar transaction the seller was arrested. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction eight to one, two concurring. As I read the opinion the majority based its decision on two considerations. First, they felt that ruling out the deception used by the agent would render nearly all undercover work virtually unconstitutional per se, and that such a result would “severely hamper the Government in ferreting out those organized criminal activities that are characterized by covert dealings with victims who either cannot or do not protest.” 385 U.S. at 210, 87 S. Ct. at 427. Secondly, the Court was impressed by the fact that “. . . petitioner invited the undercover agent to his home for the specific purpose of executing a felonious sale of narcotics. . . . During neither of his visits to petitioner‘s home did the agent see, hear, or take anything that was not contemplated, and in fact intended, by petitioner as a
The fourth and most recent case in this area is United States v. Haden, 397 F. 2d 460 (7th Cir. 1968). In that case the authorities learned that Haden had contacted several foreign chemical producers requesting information about certain processes used in the manufacture of narcotic drugs. An agent, posing as a German chemist, called on Haden. Although Haden at first denied any knowledge of what the agent was talking about they eventually got together and the agent agreed to demonstrate a process used in the manufacture of heroin to Haden for a fee. Haden was to supply the raw material—morphine sulphate tablets. After several false starts Haden got some tablets and turned them over to the agent; they met in a parking lot and Haden told the agent that the tablets were under the rug on the right front floor of his car. While Haden looked on from a distance the agent retrieved the tablets from Haden‘s car. Haden was then arrested. The court cited Lopez, Hoffa and Lewis and affirmed.
The problem now is to determine whether the deceptive conduct utilized in this case is permissible under the Lopez-Hoffa-Lewis rationale or is proscribed by the logic of Gouled and its progeny.4
In Lopez, Hoffa, Lewis, and Haden the eventual defendants all openly committed or admitted to criminal behavior in the presence of the government agent. No additional action by the government agent was necessary to positively establish the defendant‘s criminality. The only thing separating the defendants from almost certain criminal prosecution was their (misplaced) confidence that the person to whom they disclosed their venality would not reveal it to others.
In the Gouled line of cases the government agents who eventually revealed the defendant‘s criminality became aware of that criminality only after invading the defendant‘s security more deeply than consented to. They had to take some additional action, not reasonably a part of the consensual intrusion, in order to
Although it is a close question, I believe that the instant case is of the Gouled variety. The officer took the gun from defendant‘s possession for a reason different from that given to gain his consent. As in the other cases the government carried out an extensive search and seizure by deceitfully gaining the defendant‘s consent to a lesser invasion of his constitutionally protected security. I believe therefore that it constitutes a violation of the
There is another factor that impels me toward the conclusion that the behavior in the instant case violated the
I would hold that the officer‘s conduct in this case resulted in a violation of Brown‘s
Mr. Justice POMEROY joins in this dissent.
Notes
See, also, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 1023 (1938); Schoepflin v. United States, 391 F. 2d 390 (9th Cir. 1968); Cipres v. United States, 343 F. 2d 95 (9th Cir. 1965); Commonwealth ex rel. Whiting v. Cavell, 244 F. Supp. 560 (W.D. Pa. 1965); see J. Mintz, “Search of Premises by Consent,” 73 Dick. L. Rev. 44 (1968); Comment, “Effective Consent to Search and Seizure,” 113 U. Pa. L. Rev. 260 (1964).
Of all the cases which discuss violations by deceit of the fourth amendment by focusing on the voluntariness of consent, one of the most interesting is Robbins v. MacKenzie, 364 F. 2d 45 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 913, 87 S. Ct. 215 (1966). There an officer knocked on an apartment door and requested entry to question the occupant about a recent crime. Upon entry into the room he saw some fruits of the crime sitting out in the open. The court held the evidence admissible saying: “Here the police were not seeking to bypass the commissioner. They did not . . . misstate their purpose in seeking entry. . . . Rideout [the officer] told the truth; he exercised no ruse; he threatened no force. After entry he made no attempt to engage in a search.” * * * “We would agree . . . that where the officer‘s real objective is search and seizure the householder‘s consent should not only be clearly voluntary, but also specifically directed toward search and not merely toward entry.” 364 F. 2d at 49.