Legal Opinion

Edward M. v. O'Neill

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 16, 1981No. 1502 and 1858-1860PublishedCited by 14 opinions

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

  1. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa. v. DriscollSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  2. Commonwealth v. MaloneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  3. Marks v. Bell Tel. Co. of Penn.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Commonwealth v. BeySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. Commonwealth v. RoseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Wojciechowski v. MurraySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Moore v. Mobil Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Moore v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor VehiclesCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  4. In the Interest of JacobsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  5. 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.

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

Powered by the Exa API