Court Opinion

ID: 9746376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:13:58.032231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:12.657059
License: Public Domain

ROWLEY, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
While I agree with the majority’s disposition of the first and third issues concerning dismissal of the criminal complaint and sufficiency of the evidence, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that appellant’s statements should have been suppressed under Commonwealth v. Meyer, 488 Pa. 297, 412 A.2d 517 (1980). I think that Meyer is distinguishable on its facts and that the facts in this case closely parallel those in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). Considering also that the U.S. Supreme Court cited Meyer as an example of the confusion among various jurisdictions in applying Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) to situations involving motorists stopped for *118traffic violations, I think that Berkemer is controlling in this case. I would affirm the judgment of sentence.