police error in Pennsylvania

2025Such evidence may only be used under certain exceptions, such as when the when the evidence would have “inevitably been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct.” Id. at 489 (citation omitted).

2025Such evidence may only be used under certain exceptions, such as when the evidence would have “inevitably been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct.” Id. at 489 (citation omitted).

2025When “the evidence in question would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct, there is no nexus sufficient to provide a taint and the evidence is admissible.” Nix, 467 U.S. at 448 .

2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Melendez, 676 A.2d 226, 230 (Pa. 1996); Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 447 (1984) (“[W]hen ... the evidence in question would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct, there is no nexus sufficient to provide a taint and the evidence is admissible.”).

2025More specifically, the inevitable discovery exception allows admission of otherwise illegally obtained evidence “[i]f the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the illegally obtained evidence ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means[.] The purpose of the inevitable discovery rule is to block setting aside convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct.” Commonwealth v. Bailey, 986 A.2d 860, 862 (Pa. Super. 2009) (brackets and ellipses omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 979 A.2d 879, 890 (Pa. Super. 2009) ____

2022“The purpose of the inevitable discovery rule is to block setting aside convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct.” Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 979 A.2d 879, 890 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citing Nix, 467 U.S. at 444 n.4).

2025Any evidence obtained by police through an unlawful search “may only be used against the defendant if [. . .] the evidence in question would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct.” Commonwealth v. Fulton, 179 A.3d 475, 489-90 (Pa. 2018) (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Bailey, 986 A.2d 860, 862 (Pa. Super. 2009) (illegally obtained evidence is allowable “[i]f the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the illegally obtained evidence ultimately or inevitably would have been disco

2025More specifically, the inevitable discovery exception allows admission of otherwise illegally obtained evidence “[i]f the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the illegally obtained evidence ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means[.] The purpose of the inevitable discovery rule is to block setting aside convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct.” Commonwealth v. Bailey, 986 A.2d 860, 862 (Pa. Super. 2009) (brackets and ellipses omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 979 A.2d 879, 890 (Pa. Super. 2009) ____

2018Such evidence may only be used against the defendant "[i]f knowledge of [the evidence] is gained from an independent source," Silverthorne Lumber Co. , 251 U.S. at 392 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , or "the evidence in question would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct," *490 Nix v. Williams , 467 U.S. 431 , 448, 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984).

2018Such evidence may only be used against the defendant "[i]f knowledge of [the evidence] is gained from an independent source," Silverthorne Lumber Co. , 251 U.S. at 392 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , or "the evidence in question would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct," *490 Nix v. Williams , 467 U.S. 431 , 448, 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984).

1995Moreover, where, as here, a defendant, stopped under suspicion of driving under the influence, responds to a police inquiry concerning the defendant’s understanding of field sobriety tests, evidence of the content or manner of the defendant’s speech is inadmissible at trial, absent a waiver of the protections afforded under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

1995Moreover, where, as here, a defendant, stopped under suspicion of driving under the influence, responds to a police inquiry concerning the defendant’s understanding of field sobriety tests, evidence of the content or manner of the defendant’s speech is inadmissible at trial, absent a waiver of the protections afforded under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

2025More specifically, the inevitable discovery exception allows admission of otherwise illegally obtained evidence “[i]f the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the illegally obtained evidence ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means[.] The purpose of the inevitable discovery rule is to block setting aside convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct.” Commonwealth v. Bailey, 986 A.2d 860, 862 (Pa. Super. 2009) (brackets and ellipses omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 979 A.2d 879, 890 (Pa. Super. 2009) ____

2025See Romero, 722 A.2d at 1019 .

2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Holt, 270 A.3d 1230, 1235-36 (Pa. Super. 2022) (“[O]ne who makes false statements in response to a police inquiry ‘provides’ false - 19 - J-S10034-22 statements, and the legislature’s amendment of the statutory language was designed to include such statements within the ambit of Section 5105(a)(5).”); Commonwealth v. Hlatky, 626 A.2d 575, 582 (Pa. Super. 1993) (false statements made in response to questions by the police when the defendant had knowledge of the true nature of the incident was sufficient to sustain a conviction for making false reports).

2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Melendez, 676 A.2d 226, 230 (Pa. 1996); Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 447 (1984) (“[W]hen ... the evidence in question would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct, there is no nexus sufficient to provide a taint and the evidence is admissible.”).

2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Holt, 270 A.3d 1230, 1235-36 (Pa. Super. 2022) (“[O]ne who makes false statements in response to a police inquiry ‘provides’ false - 19 - J-S10034-22 statements, and the legislature’s amendment of the statutory language was designed to include such statements within the ambit of Section 5105(a)(5).”); Commonwealth v. Hlatky, 626 A.2d 575, 582 (Pa. Super. 1993) (false statements made in response to questions by the police when the defendant had knowledge of the true nature of the incident was sufficient to sustain a conviction for making false reports).

2021Accord Commonwealth v. Roxberry, 602 A.2d 826, 828 (Pa. 1992) (holding counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the absence of an alibi jury instruction upon rejecting the Commonwealth’s argument that the defendant’s alibi testimony was not corroborated, stating “[b]ecause credibility is indisputably the exclusive province of the jury, we cannot properly permit a judge, under the guise of exercising discretion, to remove the alibi issue from the jury merely because the judge finds the evidence incredible”); Commonwealth v. Weber, 189 A.3d 1016, 1026 (Pa.Super. 2018) (holding that trial

2021District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577, 588 (2018).

2021Accord Commonwealth v. Roxberry, 602 A.2d 826, 828 (Pa. 1992) (holding counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the absence of an alibi jury instruction upon rejecting the Commonwealth’s argument that the defendant’s alibi testimony was not corroborated, stating “[b]ecause credibility is indisputably the exclusive province of the jury, we cannot properly permit a judge, under the guise of exercising discretion, to remove the alibi issue from the jury merely because the judge finds the evidence incredible”); Commonwealth v. Weber, 189 A.3d 1016, 1026 (Pa.Super. 2018) (holding that trial

2021“The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact[,] who is free to believe all, none[,] or some of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 545 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).

2020Adams, 205 A.3d at 1200 ; Commonwealth v. DeHart, 745 A.2d 633, 637 (Pa. Super. 2000).

2020See id. at 359-61 .

1993See Commonwealth v. Hipp, 380 Pa.Super. 345 , 551 A.2d 1086, 1091 (1988) (prohibition against illegal search and seizure applies only to actions of government authorities).

1993See Commonwealth v. Hipp, 380 Pa.Super. 345 , 551 A.2d 1086, 1091 (1988) (prohibition against illegal search and seizure applies only to actions of government authorities).