Court Opinion

ID: 9641593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:35:33.754973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:38.409827
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. Rule 130 of our Rules of Criminal Procedure, and our decision in Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389, 290 A.2d 417 (1972), implementing former Rule 118 (now Rule 130) require that once arrested, an accused must “. be taken without unnecessary delay before the proper issuing authority [for] arraignment.” We have subsequently struggled with many cases in which we attempted to give meaning to that command. We have concluded that “administrative delay,” — i. e., that period of time required to accomplish the mechanics of the booking process — is not an “unnecessary delay” under the rule. Administrative delay, however, has never been held to include a waiting period so that the detective in charge of the investigation, who happens to be at the crime scene at the time of an arrest, may return to the police station. The investigating detective’s presence is not necessary for booking purposes. The only purpose for the investigating detective’s return is to interrogate the arrestee. Time spent awaiting the investigating detective’s arrival cannot be considered necessary so as to remove the requirements for prompt arraignment.
ROBERTS, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.