Legal Opinion

In the Interest of R.H.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 21, 2002PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION ANNOUNCING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

NIGRO, Justice.

In this appeal, Appellant R.H., a minor, argues that the Superior Court improperly affirmed the order of the trial court denying his motion to suppress the statements he made during questioning by a school police officer. We agree with Appellant that he was entitled to receive Miranda warnings before being questioned by the school police officer and therefore, we reverse the Superior Court’s order affirming Appellant’s adjudication of delinquency.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On December 7,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Thompson v. KeohaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Commonwealth v. HallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Commonwealth v. CortezSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Jones v. City of PhiladelphiaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. Commonwealth v. McCraeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. In re K.Q.M.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. In re B.T.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  5. B.A. v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2018

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API