Petitioner went to his mother's place of business after his
mother told him by telephone that the police wished to talk with
him. He was apprehended and taken to a police station, where,
within 15 minutes, he confessed to a murder by stabbing. He wrote
and signed a statement and later repeated the substance of the
statement in response to further police questioning. A separate
hearing on the voluntariness of the confessions was held, and the
trial judge found them voluntary and admitted them into evidence.
Petitioner was convicted, and the conviction was affirmed by the
Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court. In the New York
Court of Appeals, petitioner for the first time raised a Fourth
Amendment issue, claiming that there was no probable cause for his
arrest and that the confessions, even if voluntary, were
inadmissible fruits of the illegal detention. The Court of Appeals
affirmed, holding that the State could conduct brief custodial
interrogation of
"those persons reasonably suspected of possessing knowledge of
the crime under investigation in circumstances involving crimes
presenting a high degree of public concern affecting the public
safety."
Held:
1. The determination that the confessions were voluntary is not
disturbed, as the trial occurred prior to
Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, and
the totality of the circumstances shows that the confessions were
not coerced.
2. The question of the legality of custodial questioning on less
than probable cause for a full-fledged arrest, which goes beyond
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, and
Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, is
not decided in view of the absence of a record which squarely and
necessarily presents the issue and fully illuminates the factual
context in which the question arises.
22 N.Y.2d 55, 238 N.E.2d 307, vacated and remanded.
Page 396 U. S. 103
PER CURIAM.
On October 4, 1964, a murder by stabbing took place in an
elevator of an apartment building where petitioner Morales' mother
lived and where Morales frequently visited. On October 13, his
mother informed Morales by telephone that the police wished to talk
with him; petitioner said that he would come that evening to his
mother's place of business. This he did. He was apprehended by
police officers and taken to the police station, arriving at 8:30
p.m. Within 15 minutes, he had confessed to the crime, and, by 9:05
p.m., he had written and signed a statement. In response to
subsequent questioning by police officers, Morales later repeated
the substance of this confession. At the trial, the court held a
separate hearing on the voluntariness of the confessions, found
them voluntary, and admitted them over Morales' objection. Morales
was convicted, the jury apparently rejecting his alibi defense that
he was with his mother at the time of the murder. The Appellate
Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed without opinion.
People v. Morales, 27 App.Div.2d 904, 280 N.Y.S.2d 520
(1967). In the New York Court of Appeals, Morales for the first
time raised a Fourth Amendment issue, claiming that there was no
probable cause for his detention at the time of his confessions and
that the confessions, even if voluntary, were inadmissible fruits
of the illegal detention. The State asserted that the issue had not
been decided below, and that there had hence been no opportunity to
make a record of the relevant facts; moreover, the State claimed
that Morales had voluntarily surrendered himself for questioning,
and that, in any event, the voluntary confessions were the result
of an independent choice by Morales such that the legality of the
detention was irrelevant to the admissibility of the
confessions.
Page 396 U. S. 104
The Court of Appeals affirmed, accepting without discussion the
trial court's finding as to the voluntariness of Morales'
confessions.
People v. Morales, 22 N.Y.2d 55, 238 N.E.2d
307 (1968). The court dealt with and rejected the Fourth Amendment
claim not on the ground that there was probable cause to arrest,
but rather on the ground that the police conduct involved was
reasonable under the circumstances of the case. Although Morales
was not free to leave at the time he was apprehended, and would
have been restrained had he attempted to flee, the Court of Appeals
stated that his detention was not a formal arrest under New York
law, and that, had he refused to answer questions in the police
station (where he was entitled to have a lawyer if he desired one),
he would have been free to leave. The Court of Appeals held that
the State had authority under the Fourth Amendment to conduct brief
custodial interrogation of
"those persons reasonably suspected of possessing knowledge of
the crime under investigation in circumstances involving crimes
presenting a high degree of public concern affecting the public
safety."
22 N.Y.2d at 65, 238 N.E.2d at 314. We granted certiorari, 394
U.S. 972 (1969).
After considering the full record, we do not disturb the
determination of the trial court, affirmed by the New York
appellate courts, that Morales' confessions were voluntarily given.
The trial occurred prior to
Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U. S. 436
(1966), and the totality of the circumstances surrounding the
confessions shows that the confessions were voluntary, not
coerced.
We should not, however, decide on the record before us whether
Morales' conviction should otherwise be affirmed. The ruling below,
that the State may detain for custodial questioning on less than
probable cause for a traditional arrest, is manifestly important,
goes beyond
Page 396 U. S. 105
our subsequent decisions in
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S.
1 (1968), and
Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S.
40 (1968), and is claimed by petitioner to be at odds
with
Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.
S. 721 (1969). But we have concluded after considering
the parties' briefs and hearing oral argument that there is merit
in the State's position that the record does not permit a
satisfactory evaluation of the facts surrounding the apprehension
and detention of Morales. A lengthy hearing was held on the
question of the voluntariness of the confessions, but the basis for
the apprehension of Morales does not appear to have been fully
explored, since no challenge to the lawfulness of the apprehension
was raised until the case came to the Court of Appeals. Although
that court stated that
"[i]t may be conceded that the apprehending detectives did not
have probable cause to justify an arrest of defendant at the time
they took him into custody,"
22 N.Y.2d at 58, 238 N.E.2d at 310, the court later said
that
"[t]he checkerboard square of the police investigation, although
resting upon circumstantial evidence, pointed only to defendant. .
. . In fact, defendant was the only person the police could have
reasonably detained for questioning based upon the instant
record."
22 N.Y.2d at 64, 238 N.E.2d at 313.
Given an opportunity to develop in an evidentiary hearing, the
circumstances leading to the detention of Morales, and his
confessions, the State may be able to show that there was probable
cause for an arrest or that Morales' confrontation with the police
was voluntarily undertaken by him or that the confessions were not
the product of illegal detention. In any event, in the absence of a
record that squarely and necessarily presents the issue and fully
illuminates the factual context in which the question arises, we
choose not to grapple
Page 396 U. S. 106
with the question of the legality of custodial questioning on
less than probable cause for a full-fledged arrest.
We accordingly vacate the judgment below and remand the case for
further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK dissents and would affirm.