Edward M. v. O'Neill
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
CAVANAUGH, Judge:
The dispute in this case concerns the legality of Philadelphia Police Department Directive 95 which concerns juveniles in police custody and which established procedures for the fingerprinting and photographing of juvenile arrestees over fifteen years of age. On August 21, 1979, the Honorable Paul A. Dandridge, sitting in Juvenile Court, granted motions to expunge all fingerprint and photograph records obtained from juvenile defendants Vander Clayborne and Ronald Forrest pursuant to Directive 95. The Commonwealth’s appeals from these orders are captioned and docketed as…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Bell Tel. Co. of Pa. v. DriscollSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Commonwealth v. MaloneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Marks v. Bell Tel. Co. of Penn.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Commonwealth v. BeySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Commonwealth v. RoseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Wojciechowski v. MurraySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Moore v. Mobil Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Moore v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor VehiclesCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- In the Interest of JacobsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Z&R Cab, LLC, Zoro, Inc., R. Blount and D. Bell v. PPACommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.