Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MICHAEL WHITE (03/09/79)

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: March 9, 1979.

IN THE INTEREST OF MICHAEL WHITE, A MINOR. APPEAL OF MICHAEL WHITE, A MINOR

No. 1441 October Term, 1978, Appeal from final Order of Disposition on April 18, 1978, in the Matter of Michael White, a Minor, Nos. 117, 182 and 183 of 1978, Juvenile Bucks County, by which Order the Minor was adjudicated Delinquent.

COUNSEL

Cynthia M. Weaver, Assistant Public Defender, Doylestown, for appellant.

Kenneth G. Biehn, District Attorney, Doylestown, for Com., appellee.

Cercone, Hester and Hoffman, JJ.

Author: Hoffman

[ 264 Pa. Super. Page 191]

This case should be read in conjunction with In Interest of Schirner, 264 Pa. Super. 185, 399 A.2d 728 (1979), where the facts are stated. Appellant Michael White also contends that his statements obtained while he was in custody at the Bristol Township police station should have been suppressed. However, we find that the statements were properly admitted, and therefore affirm the adjudication of delinquency.

White was brought into custody by his father and immediately confessed to delinquent acts, namely numerous burglaries. The questioning terminated about an hour after he was in custody. This temporary detention for the purpose of determining whether White should be detained under the Juvenile Act, 11 P.S. § 50-309, is authorized by Section 310(a)(3) of the Act, and is well within the time

[ 264 Pa. Super. Page 192]

    allowed for questioning in In Interest of Anderson, 227 Pa. Super. 439, 313 A.2d 260 (1973). After the police finished questioning White, he was placed in a detention cell overnight. There is no question that this violated the Juvenile Act, because a police station is an inappropriate place for the detention of delinquents. 11 P.S. § 50-311(a); Commonwealth v. Bey, 249 Pa. Super. 185, 199, 375 A.2d 1304, 1312 (1977). However, the violation occurred after the confession, and thus the statements were not obtained "in the course of" the violation, 11 P.S. § 50-318. Cf. Commonwealth v. Jones, 473 Pa. 381, 385, 374 A.2d 970, 972 (1977) (under Futch analysis, unlawful delay which follows a confession does not affect the admissibility of the confession). Therefore, the court below properly admitted White's statement at his delinquency hearing.

Adjudication of delinquency affirmed.

19790309

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.