Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

High stakes, but no dice roll. Supreme Court upholds police encounter at casino that leads to homicide confession and conviction.

July 1, 2017
Commonwealth v. Raghunandan Yandamuri, No. 710 CAP, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 945 (Pa. Apr. 26, 2017)

The plaintiff-appellant appealed his two death sentences for murdering an elderly woman and kidnapping and murdering her ten-month-old grandchild. He filed a pro se appeal, challenging on several grounds, including the denial of his motion to suppress, and alleging that police officers illegally arrested him while he was at the Valley Forge casino. The plaintiff argued that his initial encounter with police officers at the casino was an illegal arrest, lacking probable cause, and, thus, all of his statements—including his handwritten and videotaped confession following their questioning—should have been suppressed. The plaintiff contended that neither he, nor any reasonable person, would have felt free to leave during the police encounter due to the following actions of law enforcement and casino personnel: (1) escorting him from a gaming table to a private hallway restricted to casino employees; (2) precluding him from cashing in his chips; (3) failing to return his casino players card; (4) prohibiting him from driving his own car to the police station; (5) holding his cell phone during the drive to the police station; and (6) denying his requests to call his pregnant wife to answer her incoming call. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s appeal and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the initial motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed that the plaintiff was not under arrest or in custody because of his voluntary actions, including: (1) agreeing to assist plain clothes police officers when they approached him at the casino about the kidnapping; (2) never requesting to leave during police questioning; and (3) never requesting an attorney during police questioning. Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 535 Pa. 210, 634 A.2d 1078, 1085-86 (Pa. 1994) (whether a person is in custody or under arrest is subject to an objective standard rather than the “strictly subjective view” of law enforcement or defendant); Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480, 499 n.10 (Pa. 2015) (finding someone is in custody when physically denied freedom of action or reasonably believes that his/her freedom of action or movement is restricted by law enforcement interrogation (citing Commonwealth v. Johnson, 615 Pa. 354, 42 A.3d 1017, 1028 (Pa. 2012)). This case emphasizes that law enforcement officials must be mindful of the environment they create when approaching and speaking with suspects. The investigators’ lawful actions obtained the plaintiff’s confession, protected the conviction and protected the municipality against future civil rights litigation. 

 

Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2017

Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2017 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Affiliated Attorney

Diana P. Cortes
Associate
(215) 575-2721
dpcortes@mdwcg.com

Practice Areas

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."