FREE CONSULTATIONS

Email or Call (215) 564-0644

    Miranda Rights for Parolees in Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules for Parolees in Recent Criminal Case

    Commonwealth v. Cooley (June 2015)

    Pennsylvania has finally joined neighboring states such as NY and NJ with respect to parolees’ constitutional rights, specifically, the right to receive Miranda warnings. In a recent case, Commonwealth v. Cooley, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed both the Superior Court and the trial court which both ruled that parole officers may detain a parolee without reading Miranda warnings, even when the questioning is related to a new crime.

    Related: Philadelphia Criminal Cases: What are Your Constitutional Rights?

    Facts of the Case

    arrested police miranda warnings_mini In the Cooley case, the defendant was on parole for a drug conviction when a family member called the parole officer and indicated that the defendant was in possession of drugs and guns, in violation of his parole. When the defendant arrived at the parole office, he was placed in handcuffs and questioned about whether he had any guns in his home. He admitted that he did. The officers then transported the defendant to his home and conducted a search, finding guns, a large amount of cash, a large amount of drugs and other evidence of drug dealing. The defendant admitted they were his.

    Subsequently, the officers questioned the defendant about the whereabouts of his car and after searching it, found another gun. Again, the defendant admitted ownership of the gun. During this entire time, he was in handcuffs; at no time was he given Miranda warnings. The defendant was then charged with multiple counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, possession with intent to deliver, etc. He filed a motion to suppress the statements he made. After that motion was denied, a jury found him guilty of all counts, and he was sentenced to 5-10 years of prison.

    He filed a post-sentence motion, which was denied by the trial court. He then appealed his sentence, specifically, the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The intermediate appellate court, the PA Superior Court, upheld the trial court’s findings—that the parole officer’s questions were allowed as part of the parole process, and the detention (handcuffing) and questioning were therefore not custodial interrogation.

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed both the trial court and Superior Court and remanded the case for a new trial. The court found that the defendant had been subjected to custodial interrogation and therefore must have been given Miranda warnings. The trial court should have granted his motion to suppress. The court stated:

    “A parolee does not lose the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination merely because of conviction of a crime; parolees, like any other individual, must be given Miranda warnings when subjected to custodial interrogation. Custodial interrogation is defined as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way,” and the Commonwealth does not contest that appellant was questioned by law enforcement officers; the only dispute is whether he was in custody. An individual is in custody if he is “physically denied his freedom of action in any significant way or is placed in a situation in which he reasonably believes that his freedom of action or movement is restricted by the interrogation”.” (citations omitted)

    This recent opinion is a very important one for many parolees and probationers in the Philadelphia area. Those who are subjected to custodial interrogation by parole/probation officers have a constitutional right to remain silent about new charges and must be read Miranda warnings prior to questioning.

    More: Constitutional Rights in Philadelphia Criminal Drug & Gun Cases – The 5th Amendment (Part 1)

    If you or a loved one was charged with a new offense after a parole/probation investigation, contact our office for a free case review. (215) 564-0644

    Disclaimer: This website does not create any attorney-client relationship or provide legal advice. Our lawyers provide legal advice only after accepting a case. It is imperative that any action taken is done on advice of counsel. Read full disclaimer below.

     

    David S. Nenner

    "Top Rated Criminal Defense Lawyer"
    (2015-2022)

    MURDER, Att. Murder CHARGES – Negotiated Significantly Lower prison sentence (Feb. 2022, PHILA)

    Mr. Anderson faced murder and attempted murder charges after an incident in Northeast Philadelphia involving the shooting death of Anderson’s sister’s boyfriend and the boyfriend’s roommate who was shot 5 times and survived. The decedent had previously beaten the...

    Att. MURDER CHARGES – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (April 2022, PHILA)

    The Commonwealth alleged that Mr. Shelton shot and seriously injured a male in a bar in North Philadelphia called Circles. There was video of the shooting which happened outside the bar. However, Mr. Nenner presented witnesses who testified that the person in the bar...

    MURDER, Robbery CHARGES – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (MAY 2021, PHILA)

    Mr. Nenner's client was charged with multiple crimes (murder, conspiracy, aggravated assault, robbery, etc.) after a shooting death occurred at a gambling house in North Philadelphia. At trial, Mr. Nenner successfully presented a self-defense argument and convinced...

    MURDER CHARGE – NOT GUILTY JURY VERDICT (MAY 2021, PHILA)

    Mr. Nenner’s client was charged with murder and gun charges in Philadelphia. The client was accused of shooting and killing another male on Arch Street near the 5600 block of Ithan Street in Philadelphia. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty after deliberating...

    Drug Possession Case – Motion to Suppress Granted

    Mr. Nenner presented evidence that to show that the traffic stop was a pretextual stop. The officer had no reason to pull the car over. The judge agreed and suppressed the evidence. As a result, the prosecution withdrew the charges.

    Drug Charges in Philadelphia PA State Court – Possession of a Controlled Substance

    In most criminal drug cases in Philadelphia, there are two common charges or offenses: Possession of a Controlled Substance and Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver. In addition to these drug charges, there are other drug related charges, such...

    Drug Charges in Philadelphia PA State Court – What is “Possession”

    Page last reviewed and updated: October 20, 2019 One of the most common types of criminal state (PA) cases in Philadelphia is possession of drugs. Possession of a Controlled Substance (PCS) and Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver (PWID) often...

    Pennsylvania Second Degree Murder (AKA: Felony Murder) Law

    Philadelphia criminal lawyer David S. Nenner discusses the current status of second degree murder law in Pennsylvania. This is also known as the felony murder rule. Get info about PA court decisions and the agency theory. Not every case of death during the commission of a felony will result in a second degree murder conviction in PA.

    Philadelphia Murder Cases – Police Investigation Tactics

    Questioning Police Officer Tactics in Philadelphia Murder Cases Within the last 10 years, there have been several murder Philadelphia criminal cases in which the accused individuals were acquitted of the crimes. In these cases, the individuals spent months, if not...

    Murder Charges in Pennsylvania – Murder Law in Pennsylvania

    An explanation of Pennsylvania murder laws including Section 2502. What is murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree and murder in the third degree. Get a summary of the definitions under Pennsylvania criminal law.