Legal Opinion · Dissent

In the Interest of T.P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 21, 2013Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

WECHT, J.:

T.P. (“Appellee”) filed a motion seeking to suppress statements that he made during a polygraph examination. Appellee was required to undergo that polygraph in order to complete court-ordered sexual offender counseling. The inculpatory statements that ensued formed the basis for the juvenile delinquency petition that is at issue here. Appellee alleged that his statements should be suppressed because: (1) his constitutional rights against self-incrimination were violated when he received no Miranda1 warnings; (2) his statements were not made knowingly,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Commonwealth v. DelbridgeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. In Re Frederick F.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API