holding that defendant was subject to custodial interrogation when interviewed by a state trooper at police barracks, even if defendant may have believed he was brought to the barracks to repair a police cruiser, as it was clear from troopers' testimony that defendant was not free to leave the barracks and he was going to be arrested
Summary of this case from Com. v. Pitts1997
holding that defendant was subject to custodial interrogation when interviewed by a state trooper at police barracks, even if defendant may have believed he was brought to the barracks to repair a police cruiser, as it was clear from troopers' testimony that defendant was not free to leave the barracks and he was going to be arrested
Summary of this case from Com. v. PittsFull title:PETITIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL
Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date published: Jan 1, 1997
Clearly, Appellee was in custody so as to trigger his right to Miranda warnings. See Commonwealth v. Fox, 697…