Superior Court 5/8/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RAFAEL THEVENIN

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RAFAEL THEVENIN
No. 3420 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 96 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/8/2008
Appeal from the Order dated November 2, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of PhiladelphiaCounty, Criminal, No. 0512-0316 1/1
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
The Commonwealth appeals the trial court’s order suppressing drugs found in a house after Defendant Rafael Thevenin agreed to disclose the location of the drugs when confronted with a search warrant and a police statement that he could avoid a destructive search of the house by revealing where the drugs were located. The trial court held that because Thevenin was not given his Miranda warnings, learning of the location of the stash was the fruit of an improper statement. The Commonwealth asserts that while any statement Thevenin made in response to the police is properly suppressed, the physical evidence discovered is not. We agree with the Commonwealth and reverse.


Following Commonwealth v. Abbas, 862 A.2d 606 (Pa. Super. 2004) and United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004), merely because a voluntary statement was not preceded by Miranda warnings does not require the suppression of physical evidence found pursuant to the statement. Also, we will not upset the trial court’s determination that under the circumstances
the discovery of the drugs would not have been inevitable.......

..... It is conceded that no Miranda warnings were given to Thevenin before he was asked if he wanted the police to do a full search of the house or if he wanted to reveal where the drugs were hidden. It is further conceded by the Commonwealth that the statement about the location was inadmissible. However, case law indicates that these concessions do not require the suppression of the tangible objects discovered in the search.

Preliminarily, we note that we want to encourage the police to give a defendant or others that live with a defendant the opportunity to avoid a major disturbance to his or her house prior to an invasive search. Of course, nothing about this encouragement is lessened if the police gave the Miranda warnings prior to the request. We are simply noting that the prevention of unnecessary disturbance or destruction of property is a proper goal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted this same goal in United States v. Crespo de Llano, 838 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1988).

Although Crespo de Llano was decided under Fifth Amendment principles, the federal court nonetheless realized that police, when possessing a valid search warrant, have the inherent power to search for contraband that has been hidden. While some criminals leave the evidence of their wrongdoing in plain view, not all criminals are so accommodating. The law recognizes this fact and allows the police fair latitude in searching for hidden contraband. Statements such as the one in question here inform the person affected by the search of that latitude and offer that person the opportunity to avoid the disturbance of the property that is otherwise allowed by the law. Giving a suspect this opportunity strikes us as laudatory policy rather than requiring the police to hold their tongues and letting the chips fall as they may.

While policy favors allowing the police to give the defendant the opportunity to cooperate and avoid possible property destruction, the more important aspect of the issue is whether a Miranda warning is required prior to offering the opportunity to cooperate and what happens if a Miranda warning is not given prior to the offer.....