Commonwealth v. Haynes
577 A.2d 564, 395 Pa. Super. 322 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A confession made during an illegal custodial detention is not automatically suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree if the taint of the initial illegality is purged by intervening circumstances, such as confronting the suspect with incriminating evidence that prompts the confession.
Facts:
- Eddilee Sims, the 53-year-old mother of Angelo P. Haynes' friend, was found dead from stabbing and strangulation.
- Detectives Bauer and McGuire of the City of Pittsburgh went to the neighboring municipality of Wilkinsburg to find Haynes at his girlfriend's home.
- The detectives were aware of a three-year-old outstanding bench warrant for Haynes but were unsure of its status.
- The detectives told Haynes they were investigating the Sims murder but asked him to accompany them to the police station to 'clear up' the outstanding bench warrant.
- Haynes consented to go with the officers believing the purpose of the trip was to resolve the warrant.
- Immediately upon arrival at the Pittsburgh police station, Haynes was placed in an interrogation room, read his Miranda rights, and questioned about the Sims homicide.
- After approximately one hour and fifteen minutes of interrogation, police told Haynes his fingerprints and palm prints matched those found on the victim's door, which had been forced open.
- Upon being confronted with this evidence, Haynes stated that he broke into the apartment but claimed another person, Dan Smith, had killed Ms. Sims.
Procedural Posture:
- Angelo P. Haynes was tried before a jury in the court of first instance.
- The jury found Haynes guilty of First Degree Murder.
- The trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment.
- Haynes filed post-trial motions, including a motion to suppress his statements, which the trial court denied.
- Haynes, the appellant, appealed his conviction and the denial of his motions to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does police deception regarding the purpose of transporting a suspect to a police station invalidate the suspect's consent and render his subsequent custodial confession inadmissible, even if the confession was prompted by being confronted with incriminating evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Del Sole, J.
No, the confession is admissible. While police deception as to the purpose of transporting a suspect to the station invalidates consent and renders the subsequent custody illegal, the confession is not automatically suppressed if the causal chain between the illegality and the confession is broken. Here, the police deceived Haynes by misrepresenting the purpose of the trip to the station, which was not to clear up a warrant but to conduct a homicide interrogation. This deception pertained to the content of the consent itself, making it invalid and the resulting custody illegal. However, the confession was not obtained by exploiting this illegality. Instead, it was prompted by the intervening circumstance of the police confronting Haynes with incriminating fingerprint evidence. Applying the factors from Brown v. United States, the court found that although the time between the illegal custody and the statement was short, the presence of Miranda warnings and the significant intervening event of being confronted with evidence purged the taint of the initial illegality. The police misconduct, while purposeful, was not deemed flagrant. Therefore, the statement was admissible as it was not the fruit of the poisonous tree.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical distinction in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence regarding police deception. It holds that consent obtained by trickery regarding the fundamental purpose of the police interaction is invalid, resulting in an illegal seizure. However, the opinion significantly limits the impact of the exclusionary rule in such cases by applying the 'purging the taint' doctrine. The decision signals to lower courts that a confession following an illegal seizure may still be admitted if it results from a distinct intervening event, such as the presentation of new evidence, effectively breaking the causal link to the police misconduct. This reinforces that the primary illegality does not create a per se bar to admitting subsequent statements.

Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Haynes