Court Opinion

ID: 9760107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:40:33.286961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:08.307490
License: Public Domain

McDERMOTT, Justice,
concurring.
Although I agree with the result reached by the majority today, I write separately to delineate my opposition to this *152Court’s continued reliance on Commonwealth v. Davenport, 471 Pa. 278, 370 A.2d 301 (1977).
I repeat the view of the six hour rule as stated in Commonwealth v. Bennett, 498 Pa. 656, 450 A.2d 970 (1982) (McDermott, J., concurring).
A prophylactic rule, such as the six hour rule, is a classic of technicality. Classic because it applies to all circumstances, no matter what distinctions of justice may inhere in the facts of a given case.
498 Pa. at 660, 450 A.2d 970 at 972.
We must therefore discard Davenport and return to a more flexible approach. This will enable our courts to suppress statements where they were obtained through coercion rather than watch the clocks and count the hours.