seconds and she gave a physical description of the man and his clothing. She remembered being interviewed by Agent Doss of the F.B.I. on February 1, 1973, and selecting a picture from a photo-spread (Exhibit G-11), but she could not recall which of the seven photographs she had selected. At the hearing, she positively identified the defendant as the man who robbed the bank. Miss Sutton also testified that she had been subpoenaed to appear at 1801 Vine Street on four separate occasions, only two of which resulted in actual Court appearances. She remembered being in Juvenile Court on February 20, 1973, however, the hearing was continued. The defendant was brought before the Judge, and she saw him briefly from a distance of about fifteen feet. Miss Sutton recalled being interviewed alone by Agent Doss afterward, and she told him she was certain that the defendant was the individual who had robbed the bank. Finally, she testified that she had made this judgment based upon her recollection of the physical features of the bank robber during the course of the holdup.
Mrs. Singleton, the defendant's mother, was the first witness called by the defense. She testified that she was upstairs when the police came and that their search lasted about 45 minutes. She stated that an F.B.I. agent gave her a copy of the search warrant. She also stated that she informed the police her son was a minor. She further testified that she went to defense counsel's office at around 8:45 a.m. on the morning of February 7, 1973 and while there heard him call the police and instruct them not to question her son anymore. She stated that she did not see her son until about 11:45 that morning and that she then noticed bruises on his ear and shoulder.
Doctor Jen Yu testified that he examined the defendant in the screening area of the Philadelphia General Hospital and gave Singleton an appointment to return. He explained that the function of the screening area is to determine whether or not a patient needs emergency treatment. If the patient does not need emergency treatment he is given a future appointment. The doctor's screening examination of Singleton produced no evidence that defendant had been beaten.
The defendant testified that when the police arrived, Detective Riehl gave him a piece of paper and said it was a search warrant. He further testified that he was told he was being questioned about a bank robbery, but he stated that he only gave the statement to the Philadelphia police after he was kicked, and he testified that he did not want to sign the statement he gave to the F.B.I.
Defendant's initial argument is that neither the State search warrant nor the State arrest warrant issued upon probable cause. The search warrant (Exhibit G-3), on its face, sets forth facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the defendant committed the bank robbery in question and that the defendant and specified evidence of the crime could be found at the address stated in the warrant. While it is questionable whether the facts and circumstances set forth in the arrest warrant support a finding of probable cause because of the omission in this warrant of the underlying circumstances showing that Amos Singleton committed the crime, it is clear from the detailed showing in the search warrant that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant. Thus, even assuming the State arrest warrant was invalid, it will not vitiate the arrest made under the present circumstances. See, United States ex rel. Gockley v. Myers, 450 F.2d 232, 234 (3d Cir. 1971); Ray v. United States, 412 F.2d 1052 (9th Cir. 1969). As noted in the earlier recital of testimony presented at the hearing, in addition to objects described in the warrant, the police also recovered a.38 caliber revolver, a learner's permit and a temporary automobile registration certificate. Consideration of the defendant's motion to suppress the revolver is unnecessary as the Government has stipulated that it will not be introduced as evidence in this case. The learner's permit and temporary registration certificate will not be suppressed. Under the circumstances of this case the Court finds that they were inadvertently discovered during the course of a lawful search of the defendant's premises for the items specified in the warrant. See, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 464-471, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 2037-2041, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 299-300, 87 S. Ct. 1642, 1646-1647, 18 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1967). Defendant also contends that the learner's permit and temporary registration certificate are inadmissible because they are not listed in the "result of search" section of the warrant. As there has been no showing of prejudice, this contention will be rejected. See, United States v. Kennedy, 457 F.2d 63 (10th Cir. 1972); United States v. Moore, 452 F.2d 569 (6th Cir. 1971).
The defendant, citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S. Ct. 1758, 12 L. Ed. 2d 977 (1964), next argues that his confessions to the Philadelphia police and the F.B.I. were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. In the Court's view, however, the totality of circumstances in this case clearly indicates that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights against self-incrimination and to counsel. Although the defendant was a 17 year old juvenile at the time of his confessions, his age is only one of several factors taken into consideration. See, United States ex rel. Brown v. Rundle, 450 F.2d 517 (3d Cir. 1971); West v. United States, 399 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1968). Defendant was fully warned of his rights before giving each inculpatory statement. His initial statement to the Philadelphia police was made one-half hour after his arrival at 4:45 a.m. at the Northwest Detective Division. He made a subsequent statement before 6:30 a.m. and was not questioned further until agents of the F.B.I. interrogated him at approximately 9:50 a.m. Their interrogation ended at approximately 10:30 a.m. From the evidence presented at the hearing, it is clear that the defendant's confessions were not induced by threats or physical coercion, and that the defendant made no request to see anyone prior to providing the inculpatory statements. The defendant, in the present action, was less likely to be overpowered by the atmosphere of police questioning because, as the extract of his criminal record indicates, he has had prior contacts with the police. See generally, United States v. Speaks, 453 F.2d 966 (1st Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1071, 92 S. Ct. 1522, 31 L. Ed. 2d 804; United States v. Glasgow, 451 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1971).
The defendant's fourth argument is that his confessions to the Philadelphia police and the F.B.I. are inadmissible because they were obtained during a period of unlawful detention in violation of his rights under Rule 5(a), Fed. R. Crim. P., the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, Rule 116 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act of 1972. As discussed earlier, the defendant was arrested by state authorities during the course of a state investigation of the bank robbery in question. It was normal police procedure for the Philadelphia police to notify the F.B.I. of the defendant's apprehension. Subsequent to questioning the defendant in state custody, the F.B.I. requested of the United States Attorney's Office that authorization be sought to bring federal criminal charges against the defendant and to proceed against him as an adult. On February 21, 1973 authorization was received, and on February 23, 1973, the federal Grand Jury returned an indictment. On the same date a federal bench warrant was issued and lodged as a detainer with the Philadelphia Police Department. At present the defendant continues to be held in State custody on State charges. Defendant states that he was not sent to the Youth Study Center of the Juvenile Court of Pennsylvania until 7:40 p.m. on the day of his arrest, and he cites Commonwealth v. Tingle, 451 Pa. 241, 301 A. 2d 701 (1973), and Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389, 290 A. 2d 417 (1972) in support of his argument that his confessions should be suppressed. It is doubtful that the defendant's confessions to the Philadelphia police would be excluded under the State law enunciated in these cases because the delay did not contribute to securing the inculpatory evidence. At any rate, voluntary confessions obtained during a period of illegal state detention are admissible in a federal trial absent proof that such detention for a period forbidden to federal officers was the product of a "working arrangement" between federal and state authorities. See, United States v. Davis, 459 F.2d 167 (6th Cir. 1972); United States v. Jackson, 448 F.2d 539 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Halbert, 436 F.2d 1226 (9th Cir. 1970); Grooms v. United States, 429 F.2d 839 (8th Cir. 1970); Kulyk v. United States, 414 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1969); United States v. Coppola, 281 F.2d 340 (2nd Cir. 1959); Brown v. United States, 228 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1955). The Court in United States v. Coppola, supra, stated:
"The rule [Rule 5(a), Fed. R. Crim. P.] excludes confessions when the 'working arrangement' includes the illegal detention -- in other words, when federal law enforcement officers induce state officers to hold the defendant illegally so that they may secure a confession. However, to bring a case within this rule there must be facts, as there were in Anderson [v. United States, 318 U.S. 350, 63 S. Ct. 599, 87 L. Ed. 829], not mere suspicion or conjecture. Here, as in United States v. Abel, 2 Cir. 1958, 258 F.2d 485, 494, affirmed, 1960, 362 U.S. 217, 226-230, 80 S. Ct. 683, 4 L. Ed. 2d 668, rehearing denied, 1960 [ 362 U.S. 984], 80 S. Ct. 1056 [4 L. Ed. 2d 1019], there is no basis on which this court can properly reverse the conclusion of the district judge. The Supreme Court's decision in that case makes plain that the mere fact that two or more agencies have the same crime or the same suspects on their books and that they are cooperating to achieve a solution does not make one the agent of the other and thus responsible for the other's acts. . . . In the absence of any evidence of collaboration to achieve an unlawful end, we would not be warranted in creating a rule whereby prior cooperation of state and federal officials in the investigation of crime would prohibit the admission of uncoerced confessions made during a detention by state officers which the Federal officials did not induce and were powerless to prevent." (281 F.2d 344, 345)