information violation in Pennsylvania

2019See Maldonodo, 173 A.3d at 783 ; Robinson, 122 A.3d at 371 .

2019See Maldonodo, 173 A.3d at 783 ; Robinson, 122 A.3d at 371 .

2015Proetto, 771 A.2d at 832 (2001).

2012Proetto, 771 A.2d at 831-832 (additional citations omitted).

2000Fidelity Fund Inc. v. DiSanto, 347 Pa. Super. 112, 121 , 500 A.2d 431, 436 (1985).

2000Fidelity Fund Inc. v. DiSanto, 347 Pa. Super. 112, 121 , 500 A.2d 431, 436 (1985).

2026As to additional information, including a letter Lewis sent to prison authorities offering information about other charges, the Commonwealth admitted that it would have been disclosable if it hadn’t inadvertently overlooked it, but the court deemed it immaterial because it was cumulative of other evidence, noting, inter alia, that the Commonwealth adduced several instances of Lewis’ effort to trade information for special consideration at the outset of its direct examination of Lewis. 74 N.T.P., 6/28/2023, at 122-23. 75 See Johnson’s Br. at 29. 76 PCRA Ct. Op., 4/5/2024, at 30-31. 77 Id. at 31

2017See Sims, supra. In his final claim, Appellant alleges the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to amend the Information in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 564.

2015Compare Baehr v. Baehr, 889 A.2d 1240 (Pa. Super. 2005) (finding father did not make a reasonable effort to find employment commensurate with his ability where his job search consisted of simply contacting various companies to inquire about employment opportunities and posting his resume on Monster.com.), with Grigoruk (finding mother acted responsibly and in good faith to ____________________________________________ 2 In his brief, Father makes much of the fact that he lost his driver’s license and how that effectively forecloses his working for a railroad as a track inspector.

2013See Commonwealth v. Selenski, 606 Pa. 51 , 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (2010) (explaining that due diligence in another context “does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the [party] has put forth reasonable effort.”).

2013See Commonwealth v. Selenski, 606 Pa. 51 , 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (2010) (explaining that due diligence in another context “does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the [party] has put forth reasonable effort.”).

2004We consider the totality of the circumstances and carefully weigh the societal interests involved when determining the legitimacy of such an expectation.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 556 Pa. 216, 235 , 727 A.2d 1089, 1098 (1999). ¶ 14 In Commonwealth v. Duncan, 572 Pa. 438, 817 A.2d 455 (2003), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed á panel decision of this court which held that one does not have an expectation of privacy in his or her identification information. “[A] person’s name and address, by themselves, do not constitute information about which a person can have a reasonable expectation of

2004We consider the totality of the circumstances and carefully weigh the societal interests involved when determining the legitimacy of such an expectation.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 556 Pa. 216, 235 , 727 A.2d 1089, 1098 (1999). ¶ 14 In Commonwealth v. Duncan, 572 Pa. 438, 817 A.2d 455 (2003), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed á panel decision of this court which held that one does not have an expectation of privacy in his or her identification information. “[A] person’s name and address, by themselves, do not constitute information about which a person can have a reasonable expectation of

2004We consider the totality of the circumstances and carefully weigh the societal interests involved when determining the legitimacy of such an expectation.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 556 Pa. 216, 235 , 727 A.2d 1089, 1098 (1999). ¶ 14 In Commonwealth v. Duncan, 572 Pa. 438, 817 A.2d 455 (2003), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed á panel decision of this court which held that one does not have an expectation of privacy in his or her identification information. “[A] person’s name and address, by themselves, do not constitute information about which a person can have a reasonable expectation of

2004(See Commonwealth’s brief at 11.) We agree and find that an officer’s request for this information is not a violation of the passenger’s Constitutional rights. ¶ 13 “[T]oday the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures extends beyond the home to protect the individual against unwarranted government intrusions into any area where the individual may harbor a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Commonwealth v. Beauford, 327 Pa.Super. 253 , 475 A.2d 783, 787 (1984), citing Katz, supra. Thus, we must determine whether appellee enjoyed an expectation of privacy in his id

2004(See Commonwealth’s brief at 11.) We agree and find that an officer’s request for this information is not a violation of the passenger’s Constitutional rights. ¶ 13 “[T]oday the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures extends beyond the home to protect the individual against unwarranted government intrusions into any area where the individual may harbor a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Commonwealth v. Beauford, 327 Pa.Super. 253 , 475 A.2d 783, 787 (1984), citing Katz, supra. Thus, we must determine whether appellee enjoyed an expectation of privacy in his id

2004We consider the totality of the circumstances and carefully weigh the societal interests involved when determining the legitimacy of such an expectation.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 556 Pa. 216, 235 , 727 A.2d 1089, 1098 (1999). ¶ 14 In Commonwealth v. Duncan, 572 Pa. 438, 817 A.2d 455 (2003), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed á panel decision of this court which held that one does not have an expectation of privacy in his or her identification information. “[A] person’s name and address, by themselves, do not constitute information about which a person can have a reasonable expectation of