concurring and dissenting.
I agree that the suppression of appellant’s oral statements should be upheld; although the lower court made no findings of fact, it is sufficiently clear that the court did not believe that appellant had been advised of his Miranda rights. However, I disagree that the case should be remanded for findings regarding the issue of the validity of the warrant. We may examine that issue ourselves, by examining the warrant. Commonwealth v. Logan, 468 Pa. 424, 428 n. 4, 364 A.2d 266 (1976). Having done so, I conclude that the warrant was valid. The only question I can see is whether the nighttime search was proper. Even if it was improper, however — and here I think it was — that fact does not warrant suppression. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 245 Pa.Super. 487, 369 A.2d 733 (1977).
I should therefore affirm the order of the lower court as to the oral statements, and reverse as to the physical evidence.