Commonwealth v. Schwing 2008 PA Super 292
Topic: Suppression – Miranda Warnings – Custodial Detention
Summary: Defendant was told that he was free to go at any time but, due to his lack of experience with police, did not feel that he was free to leave. The Superior Court concluded that there was no custodial interrogation because there was no requisite showing of force or coercion that would show that the defendant was in custody. Also, the police officer lying to the defendant and telling him that the underage victim was pregnant was not an interrogation because could not have anticipated the defendant’s response (the defendant denied having intercourse with the minor but admitted having oral sex with her).