Commonwealth v. Ortiz
422 Mass. 64 (1996)
Rule of Law:
Statements made by a defendant during police questioning within six hours of a lawful arrest are admissible and not subject to suppression for unreasonable delay of arraignment, provided the statements are otherwise voluntary and made after a valid rights waiver.
Facts:
- Police obtained arrest warrants for the defendant, Hughes, for murder and for an unrelated charge of destruction of property.
- On July 15, 1994, between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., Springfield police arrested Hughes.
- At the police station, officers discovered Hughes did not speak English and summoned a Spanish-speaking officer, who arrived at 10:05 a.m.
- The officer translated Miranda rights and a form advising Hughes of his right to a prompt arraignment; at 10:10 a.m., Hughes signed forms acknowledging his rights and purportedly waiving his right to a prompt arraignment.
- Police then informed Hughes he was a suspect in a murder and interrogated him for approximately one hour to one hour and fifteen minutes.
- During the interrogation, Hughes denied involvement but acknowledged wearing specific clothing at a critical time and revealed that the clothing was at his father's house.
- Following the interrogation, police went to the father's house, where the father consented to a search and signed a waiver form.
- Police then seized the articles of clothing Hughes had described.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Hughes, was indicted in Superior Court for murder in the first degree, armed assault, and assault and battery.
- Hughes filed a pretrial motion to suppress statements made to police, as well as physical evidence and identifications resulting from those statements.
- The Superior Court motion judge granted the motion to suppress, ruling the police violated Mass. R. Crim. P. 7(a)(1) by intentionally delaying the defendant's arraignment for interrogation.
- The Commonwealth filed an application for leave to appeal the suppression order.
- A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court allowed the Commonwealth's application.
- The appeal was entered in the Appeals Court, and the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case on its own motion.
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 a statement made by a defendant within six hours of arrest, pursuant to a warrant, need to be suppressed solely because police intentionally delayed arraignment for the purpose of interrogation?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, J.
No. A statement made within six hours of arrest does not need to be suppressed for delay of arraignment. The court establishes a six-hour 'safe harbor' rule, announced in the companion case Commonwealth v. Rosario, within which statements will not be suppressed on the grounds of unreasonable delay in arraignment. This rule applies whether the arrest was made with or without a warrant, as creating a distinction would discourage police from seeking warrants. Because the defendant’s statements were obtained within this six-hour period, they fall within the safe harbor and the waiver of prompt arraignment was not necessary. The admissibility of the statements still depends on whether the defendant's Miranda waiver and subsequent statements were voluntary, an issue the motion judge did not decide and which must be considered on remand. Consequently, the clothing seized was not the fruit of an unlawful interrogation, and since the defendant's father validly consented to the search, it is also admissible.
Concurring - Liacos, C.J.
Yes, I agree with the result. The defendant's statements occurred within the six-hour safe harbor established in Commonwealth v. Rosario, and the suppression order should be reversed for that reason. However, I do not join the court's dicta regarding the validity of waivers of the right to prompt presentment, for the reasons stated in my dissent in Rosario.
Concurring - O'Connor, J.
Yes, I agree with the court's order to reverse the suppression and remand the case for further consideration. I write separately to state my agreement with the Chief Justice regarding the issue of waivers of prompt presentment.
Analysis:
This decision, along with its companion case Commonwealth v. Rosario, establishes a significant, bright-line 'six-hour safe harbor' rule for pre-arraignment interrogation in Massachusetts. It replaces a less predictable 'reasonableness' standard with a clear timeframe, providing law enforcement with greater certainty about the admissibility of statements obtained shortly after an arrest. By explicitly stating the rule applies equally to arrests made with and without warrants, the court removes any disincentive for police to follow the constitutionally preferred warrant process. This case solidifies a procedural rule that balances police investigatory needs against a defendant's right to a prompt judicial hearing.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Commonwealth v. Ortiz (1996)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"