HARRISBURG - The state Supreme Court has abandoned a long-standing six-hour limit on how long police may question people following their arrest.

In its place, the court has adopted a "totality of the circumstances" standard, similar to that used in most other states, which requires judges to examine interrogations individually for evidence of impermissible coercion.

"If the accused has not been subjected to coercive tactics, the mere passage of six hours in custody prior to questioning does not taint his confession," wrote Justice J. Michael Eakin for the majority.

The change was prompted by the case of a teen-age robbery suspect who lied to police about his identity.

Attorneys for Johnny A. Perez, now 24, sought to have his 1996 confession to the robbery of a deli and pizzeria in Philadelphia thrown out because he was interviewed after the six-hour period had expired, according to court records. The trial judge permitted prosecutors to use it, a jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to eight to 20 years.

The state's criminal procedure rules require defendants to be arraigned promptly so that they hear the charges against them and learn of the right to a lawyer and to reasonable bail. The six-hour rule was established by the Supreme Court in 1977 to ensure that the prompt-arraignment rule was administered evenly and to give police and lower courts specific guidance.

State courts have carved out exceptions in the years since to give police extra time under certain circumstances, such as when traveling between jurisdictions or when a magistrate was not immediately available.

"In many ways the rule had atrophied, had ceased to function even before its doing-away-with was formally announced," Hugh J. Burns Jr., appellate chief of the Philadelphia district attorney's office, said Tuesday.

The new approach "looks directly at what was always the question, and that's the voluntariness of the confession," Burns said.

Perez's attorney said the six-hour "bright line" rule gave police clear and objective guidelines that helped prevent false confessions.

Karl Baker, deputy chief of the appeals division for the Defender Association of Philadelphia, predicted that the new rule stemming from the March 24 decision will require judges to referee more legal disputes over police interrogation tactics.

"It's all up to what some magistrate is going to think is reasonable," Baker said.