Commonwealth v. Cooley, III, N., Aplt.

OPINION

Justice EAKIN.

This Court granted review to consider whether appellant was subject to custodial interrogation during an encounter *123with parole agents, such that their failure to issue Miranda1 warnings violated his Fifth Amendment rights. The courts below admitted appellant’s statements at trial, concluding appellant was not in custody for Fifth Amendment purposes and thus not entitled to Miranda warnings. We conclude appellant’s interaction with parole agents included custodial interrogation, making admission of the statements error, which was not harmless. Thus, we are constrained to…