the Post Office. After Kinsey read the form, he said he would waive his rights and talk, but he refused to sign the form itself. Thereafter, Kinsey told Inspector Saxby that the mail from the box had been in his possession but that he had burned it. The Inspector then left Kinsey and talked with Mrs. Woodson and with Detective O'Neill. He returned to Kinsey who then said that he had not burned the mail but it was in the basement of an abandoned house at 117 W. Sharpnack Street. He also told Inspector Saxby that he and Mrs. Woodson had broken into the box, taken out the welfare checks, and planned to cash them. When the five checks found in Mrs. Woodson's pocket were shown to him by Inspector Saxby, Kinsey admitted that they were the ones removed from the box. Kinsey also explained that he had been unwilling to speak with Detective O'Neill because on a previous occasion he had been mistreated by officers from the Northwest Detective Division during questioning about a stolen automobile.
A search warrant was obtained for 117 W. Sharpnack Street. Mail from the entered storage box, mail straps, other mail, and several green plastic trash can liners were found in the basement. This building, 117 W. Sharpnack Street, is approximately one to two blocks away from the location of the storage box in question.
The present motion to suppress was brought by Kinsey. It raises two issues: the legality of the arrest and the seizure of the welfare checks, and secondly, whether Kinsey waived his right to have counsel present during his interrogation by Inspector Saxby.
In his brief, Kinsey's counsel deals only with the question of the statement made to Inspector Saxby, thus conceding the validity of the arrest and seizure. Under the circumstances, there could be little question that Officers Drew and Eberhard had reasonable cause to arrest Kinsey and Mrs. Woodson. They had been observed, their descriptions noted, and they were arrested shortly afterward near the scene of the crime. The envelope containing the checks was in plain view and its seizure was incident to a lawful arrest.
So far as Kinsey's admissions are concerned, counsel argues that Miranda was violated by Inspector Saxby's questions after defendant had declined to give any statement to Detective O'Neill. Miranda holds, of course, that questioning must stop at any time the defendant decides that he does not wish to proceed without the assistance of an attorney.
There is no requirement that the Miranda warnings be repeated immediately prior to the commencement of every interrogation session. They do not become "stale": Commonwealth v. Abrams, 443 Pa. 295, 298-301, 278 A.2d 902 (1971). Here, Inspector Saxby did repeat the instructions required by the Miranda case. Although Kinsey refused to sign an acknowledgment that he had received the appropriate warnings, I find that Inspector Saxby's testimony is credible and I therefore conclude that Kinsey waived his rights to have counsel present during interrogation.
Kinsey's statement to Inspector Saxby is not rendered invalid by his earlier refusal to answer Detective O'Neill's questions: United States v. Grady, 423 F.2d 1091, 1093 (5th Cir. 1970); Jennings v. United States, 391 F.2d 512, 515-516 (5th Cir. 1968); Miller v. United States, 396 F.2d 492, 496 (8th Cir. 1968); Maguire v. United States, 396 F.2d 327, 331 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied 393 U.S. 1099, 89 S. Ct. 897, 21 L. Ed. 2d 792 (1969); McIntyre v. State of New York, 329 F. Supp. 9, 14 (E.D.N.Y.1971).