safe harbor rule in Massachusetts

2016In this case, we address the question left open in Commonwealth v. Fortunato, 466 Mass. 500, 509 (2013): whether voluntary, unsolicited statements that are not the product of police questioning, made more than six hours after arrest, must be suppressed under the safe harbor rule established in Commonwealth v. Rosario, 422 Mass. 48, 56-57 (1996).

2016The defendant argues that the judge erred in denying his motion for a new trial, which claimed that trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress statements the defendant made to police more than six hours after his arrest, in violation of the safe harbor rule established in Rosario, 422 Mass. at 56-57 .

2016In this case, we address the question left open in Commonwealth v. Fortunato, 466 Mass. 500, 509 (2013): whether voluntary, unsolicited statements that are not the product of police questioning, made more than six hours after arrest, must be suppressed under the safe harbor rule established in Commonwealth v. Rosario, 422 Mass. 48, 56-57 (1996).

2016See Commonwealth v. Perez, 577 Pa. 360, 372 (2004).

2012Additionally, the defendant argues that, although the safe harbor rule announced in Rosario , discussed infra, does not apply to out-of-State arrests, Commonwealth v. Morganti, 455 Mass. 388, 399 (2009), the principles underlying Rosario are implicated as they relate to the voluntariness of his statements.

2012The defendant maintains that his statements were involuntary because, although the safe harbor rule established in Rosario, supra, is generally inapplicable to out-of-State arrests, Commonwealth v. Morganti, 455 Mass. 388, 399 (2009), an extended delay in access to the courts “may disadvantage a suspect in the exercise of his rights.” As a general matter, defendants have the right to a prompt arraignment, and “police have a duty to bring an arrested person before a court for arraignment as soon as reasonably possible to prevent unlawful detention ‘and to eliminate the opportunity and incentive

1997“The court limited the application of the rule announced in Rosario to incidents of presentment delay occurring after our decision in that case was announced.” Commonwealth v. Butler, 423 Mass. 517, 524 (1996).

1996It would seem more sensible and effective to accept the view of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania referring to the safe harbor rule by stating: “[I]t was intended to interrupt [interrogation] after a reasonable period of time to allow the suspect to be advised of his custodial rights by an impartial judicial officer, as opposed to police officials, and in appropriate cases to establish the conditions of his release pending trial.” Commonwealth v. Duncan, 514 Pa. 395, 404 (1987), quoting Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 500 Pa. 144, 148 (1982).

1996It would seem more sensible and effective to accept the view of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania referring to the safe harbor rule by stating: “[I]t was intended to interrupt [interrogation] after a reasonable period of time to allow the suspect to be advised of his custodial rights by an impartial judicial officer, as opposed to police officials, and in appropriate cases to establish the conditions of his release pending trial.” Commonwealth v. Duncan, 514 Pa. 395, 404 (1987), quoting Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 500 Pa. 144, 148 (1982).