mpja violation in Pennsylvania

2022See Commonwealth v. Bergamasco, 197 A.3d 805 , 811 (Pa. Super. 2018) (“official business” exception did not apply when police officer was driving back to jurisdiction after a DUI blood draw and the defendant’s failure to yield did not pose an immediate clear and present danger); Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 1242 , 1249-50 (Pa. Super. 2011) (no MPJA violation where police officer heard call of driver passed out in McDonald’s drive-thru a quarter mile beyond his primary jurisdiction); Henry, 943 A.2d at 971 (finding technical MPJA violation where arresting officer followed driver into nei

2022See Commonwealth v. Bergamasco, 197 A.3d 805, 811 (Pa. Super. 2018) (“official business” exception did not apply when police officer was driving back to jurisdiction after a DUI blood draw and the defendant’s failure to yield did not pose an immediate clear and present danger); Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 1242, 1249-50 (Pa. Super. 2011) (no MPJA violation where police officer heard call of driver passed out in McDonald’s drive-thru a quarter mile beyond his primary jurisdiction); Henry, 943 A.2d at 971 (finding technical MPJA violation where arresting officer followed driver into neigh

2014The Superior Court in Comm. v. McPeak, 708 A.2d 1263, 1266 (Pa. Super. 1998), clarified that “the hot and fresh pursuit requirement for this MPJA exception necessitates a finding that the officers met the immediate, continuous, and uninterrupted standard...as well as the additional requirement of some sort of chase.” Instantly, Officer Lynch testified at the preliminary hearing that no “chase” was involved; rather, Officer Lynch testified that after the defendant backed his vehicle from the driveway and began to “creep” north, Officer Lynch then initiated the traffic stop.

2014The Superior Court in Comm. v. McPeak, 708 A.2d 1263, 1266 (Pa. Super. 1998), clarified that “the hot and fresh pursuit requirement for this MPJA exception necessitates a finding that the officers met the immediate, continuous, and uninterrupted standard...as well as the additional requirement of some sort of chase.” Instantly, Officer Lynch testified at the preliminary hearing that no “chase” was involved; rather, Officer Lynch testified that after the defendant backed his vehicle from the driveway and began to “creep” north, Officer Lynch then initiated the traffic stop.

2024Even in Hobel, the suppression court concluded, and this Court found its analysis persuasive that, assuming arguendo an MPJA violation, the third factor weighed in favor of Hobel where “[t]here is no evidence this search was inevitable, and [Hobel] may have gone for a longer period without discovery had [the officer] not been present outside his primary jurisdiction.” 275 A.3d at 1064 (emphasis added; some brackets in original).7 But cf. Kitcey, 305 A.3d 974 (unpublished memorandum at *7) (concluding the final O’Shea factor weighed against ____________________________________________ 7 In Hobe

2024Even in Hobel, the suppression court concluded, and this Court found its analysis persuasive that, assuming arguendo an MPJA violation, the third factor weighed in favor of Hobel where “[t]here is no evidence this search was inevitable, and [Hobel] may have gone for a longer period without discovery had [the officer] not been present outside his primary jurisdiction.” 275 A.3d at 1064 (emphasis added; some brackets in original).7 But cf. Kitcey, 305 A.3d 974 (unpublished memorandum at *7) (concluding the final O’Shea factor weighed against ____________________________________________ 7 In Hobe

2022See Commonwealth v. Bergamasco, 197 A.3d 805 , 811 (Pa. Super. 2018) (“official business” exception did not apply when police officer was driving back to jurisdiction after a DUI blood draw and the defendant’s failure to yield did not pose an immediate clear and present danger); Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 1242 , 1249-50 (Pa. Super. 2011) (no MPJA violation where police officer heard call of driver passed out in McDonald’s drive-thru a quarter mile beyond his primary jurisdiction); Henry, 943 A.2d at 971 (finding technical MPJA violation where arresting officer followed driver into nei

2022See Commonwealth v. Bergamasco, 197 A.3d 805, 811 (Pa. Super. 2018) (“official business” exception did not apply when police officer was driving back to jurisdiction after a DUI blood draw and the defendant’s failure to yield did not pose an immediate clear and present danger); Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 1242, 1249-50 (Pa. Super. 2011) (no MPJA violation where police officer heard call of driver passed out in McDonald’s drive-thru a quarter mile beyond his primary jurisdiction); Henry, 943 A.2d at 971 (finding technical MPJA violation where arresting officer followed driver into neigh

2022See Commonwealth v. Bergamasco, 197 A.3d 805 , 811 (Pa. Super. 2018) (“official business” exception did not apply when police officer was driving back to jurisdiction after a DUI blood draw and the defendant’s failure to yield did not pose an immediate clear and present danger); Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 1242 , 1249-50 (Pa. Super. 2011) (no MPJA violation where police officer heard call of driver passed out in McDonald’s drive-thru a quarter mile beyond his primary jurisdiction); Henry, 943 A.2d at 971 (finding technical MPJA violation where arresting officer followed driver into nei

2022See Commonwealth v. Bergamasco, 197 A.3d 805, 811 (Pa. Super. 2018) (“official business” exception did not apply when police officer was driving back to jurisdiction after a DUI blood draw and the defendant’s failure to yield did not pose an immediate clear and present danger); Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 1242, 1249-50 (Pa. Super. 2011) (no MPJA violation where police officer heard call of driver passed out in McDonald’s drive-thru a quarter mile beyond his primary jurisdiction); Henry, 943 A.2d at 971 (finding technical MPJA violation where arresting officer followed driver into neigh

2019See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Bergamasco , 197 A.3d 805 , 813 (Pa. Super. 2018) ; Commonwealth v. Borovichka , 18 A.3d 1242 , 1250 (Pa. Super. 2011) ; Commonwealth v. Hilliar , 943 A.2d 984 , 992 (Pa. Super. 2008) ; Commonwealth v. Henry , 943 A.2d 967 , 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) ; Commonwealth v. Peters , 915 A.2d 1213 , 1222 (Pa. Super. 2007) ; Commonwealth v. Chernosky , 874 A.2d 123 , 129-30 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc); Commonwealth v. McPeak , 708 A.2d 1263 , 1267 (Pa. Super. 1998) ; Commonwealth v. Garnett , 418 Pa.Super. 58 , 613 A.2d 569 , 572 (1992) ; Commonwealth v. Fetsick , 392 Pa.Super.

2019See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Bergamasco , 197 A.3d 805 , 813 (Pa. Super. 2018) ; Commonwealth v. Borovichka , 18 A.3d 1242 , 1250 (Pa. Super. 2011) ; Commonwealth v. Hilliar , 943 A.2d 984 , 992 (Pa. Super. 2008) ; Commonwealth v. Henry , 943 A.2d 967 , 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) ; Commonwealth v. Peters , 915 A.2d 1213 , 1222 (Pa. Super. 2007) ; Commonwealth v. Chernosky , 874 A.2d 123 , 129-30 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc); Commonwealth v. McPeak , 708 A.2d 1263 , 1267 (Pa. Super. 1998) ; Commonwealth v. Garnett , 418 Pa.Super. 58 , 613 A.2d 569 , 572 (1992) ; Commonwealth v. Fetsick , 392 Pa.Super.

2016In Commonwealth v. Bradley, 724 A.2d 351 (Pa.Super.1999) (en banc), this Court noted the exclusionary rule applies to any evidence gathered subsequent to an MPJA violation “even if the officer acts in good faith or the police officer’s actions would have been lawful if performed within the proper jurisdictional limits.” Id. at 354 , citing Commonwealth v. Brandt, 456 Pa.Super. 717 , 691 A.2d 934, 939 (1997), appeal denied 549 Pa. 695 , 700 A.2d 437 (1997). - 14 - J-A16002-16 In Commonwealth v. Chernosky, 874 A.2d 123 (Pa.Super.2005) (en banc), appeal denied 588 Pa. 747 , 902 A.2d 1238 (2006),

2016In Commonwealth v. Bradley, 724 A.2d 351 (Pa.Super.1999) (en banc), this Court noted the exclusionary rule applies to any evidence gathered subsequent to an MPJA violation “even if the officer acts in good faith or the police officer’s actions would have been lawful if performed within the proper jurisdictional limits.” Id. at 354 , citing Commonwealth v. Brandt, 456 Pa.Super. 717 , 691 A.2d 934, 939 (1997), appeal denied 549 Pa. 695 , 700 A.2d 437 (1997). - 14 - J-A16002-16 In Commonwealth v. Chernosky, 874 A.2d 123 (Pa.Super.2005) (en banc), appeal denied 588 Pa. 747 , 902 A.2d 1238 (2006),

2016In Commonwealth v. Bradley, 724 A.2d 351 (Pa.Super.1999) (en banc), this Court noted the exclusionary rule applies to any evidence gathered subsequent to an MPJA violation “even if the officer acts in good faith or the police officer’s actions would have been lawful if performed within the proper jurisdictional limits.” Id. at 354 , citing Commonwealth v. Brandt, 456 Pa.Super. 717 , 691 A.2d 934, 939 (1997), appeal denied 549 Pa. 695 , 700 A.2d 437 (1997). - 14 - J-A16002-16 In Commonwealth v. Chernosky, 874 A.2d 123 (Pa.Super.2005) (en banc), appeal denied 588 Pa. 747 , 902 A.2d 1238 (2006),

2016In Commonwealth v. Bradley, 724 A.2d 351 (Pa.Super.1999) (en banc), this Court noted the exclusionary rule applies to any evidence gathered subsequent to an MPJA violation “even if the officer acts in good faith or the police officer’s actions would have been lawful if performed within the proper jurisdictional limits.” Id. at 354 , citing Commonwealth v. Brandt, 456 Pa.Super. 717 , 691 A.2d 934, 939 (1997), appeal denied 549 Pa. 695 , 700 A.2d 437 (1997). - 14 - J-A16002-16 In Commonwealth v. Chernosky, 874 A.2d 123 (Pa.Super.2005) (en banc), appeal denied 588 Pa. 747 , 902 A.2d 1238 (2006),

2016In Commonwealth v. Bradley, 724 A.2d 351 (Pa.Super.1999) (en banc), this Court noted the exclusionary rule applies to any evidence gathered subsequent to an MPJA violation “even if the officer acts in good faith or the police officer’s actions would have been lawful if performed within the proper jurisdictional limits.” Id. at 354 , citing Commonwealth v. Brandt, 456 Pa.Super. 717 , 691 A.2d 934, 939 (1997), appeal denied 549 Pa. 695 , 700 A.2d 437 (1997). - 14 - J-A16002-16 In Commonwealth v. Chernosky, 874 A.2d 123 (Pa.Super.2005) (en banc), appeal denied 588 Pa. 747 , 902 A.2d 1238 (2006),

2016In Commonwealth v. Bradley, 724 A.2d 351 (Pa.Super.1999) (en banc), this Court noted the exclusionary rule applies to any evidence gathered subsequent to an MPJA violation “even if the officer acts in good faith or the police officer’s actions would have been lawful if performed within the proper jurisdictional limits.” Id. at 354 , citing Commonwealth v. Brandt, 456 Pa.Super. 717 , 691 A.2d 934, 939 (1997), appeal denied 549 Pa. 695 , 700 A.2d 437 (1997). - 14 - J-A16002-16 In Commonwealth v. Chernosky, 874 A.2d 123 (Pa.Super.2005) (en banc), appeal denied 588 Pa. 747 , 902 A.2d 1238 (2006),

2019See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Bergamasco , 197 A.3d 805 , 813 (Pa. Super. 2018) ; Commonwealth v. Borovichka , 18 A.3d 1242 , 1250 (Pa. Super. 2011) ; Commonwealth v. Hilliar , 943 A.2d 984 , 992 (Pa. Super. 2008) ; Commonwealth v. Henry , 943 A.2d 967 , 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) ; Commonwealth v. Peters , 915 A.2d 1213 , 1222 (Pa. Super. 2007) ; Commonwealth v. Chernosky , 874 A.2d 123 , 129-30 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc); Commonwealth v. McPeak , 708 A.2d 1263 , 1267 (Pa. Super. 1998) ; Commonwealth v. Garnett , 418 Pa.Super. 58 , 613 A.2d 569 , 572 (1992) ; Commonwealth v. Fetsick , 392 Pa.Super.

2002It is in the interest of promoting public safety, therefore, that the MPJA exceptions contemplate and condone “extra-territorial activity in response to specifically identified criminal behavior that occur[s] within the primary jurisdiction of the police.” Fetsick, 572 A.2d at 795 (quoting Commonwealth v. Merchant, 385 Pa.Super. 264 , 560 A.2d 795, 799 (1989)). ¶ 10 Appellant first contends that the MPJA did not authorize the stop because the officers never engaged in a “hot pursuit” as required under MPJA exception 8953(a)(2).

2002It is in the interest of promoting public safety, therefore, that the MPJA exceptions contemplate and condone “extra-territorial activity in response to specifically identified criminal behavior that occur[s] within the primary jurisdiction of the police.” Fetsick, 572 A.2d at 795 (quoting Commonwealth v. Merchant, 385 Pa.Super. 264 , 560 A.2d 795, 799 (1989)). ¶ 10 Appellant first contends that the MPJA did not authorize the stop because the officers never engaged in a “hot pursuit” as required under MPJA exception 8953(a)(2).

2002It is in the interest of promoting public safety, therefore, that the MPJA exceptions contemplate and condone “extra-territorial activity in response to specifically identified criminal behavior that occur[s] within the primary jurisdiction of the police.” Fetsick, 572 A.2d at 795 (quoting Commonwealth v. Merchant, 385 Pa.Super. 264 , 560 A.2d 795, 799 (1989)). ¶ 10 Appellant first contends that the MPJA did not authorize the stop because the officers never engaged in a “hot pursuit” as required under MPJA exception 8953(a)(2).

2019See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Bergamasco , 197 A.3d 805 , 813 (Pa. Super. 2018) ; Commonwealth v. Borovichka , 18 A.3d 1242 , 1250 (Pa. Super. 2011) ; Commonwealth v. Hilliar , 943 A.2d 984 , 992 (Pa. Super. 2008) ; Commonwealth v. Henry , 943 A.2d 967 , 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) ; Commonwealth v. Peters , 915 A.2d 1213 , 1222 (Pa. Super. 2007) ; Commonwealth v. Chernosky , 874 A.2d 123 , 129-30 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc); Commonwealth v. McPeak , 708 A.2d 1263 , 1267 (Pa. Super. 1998) ; Commonwealth v. Garnett , 418 Pa.Super. 58 , 613 A.2d 569 , 572 (1992) ; Commonwealth v. Fetsick , 392 Pa.Super.

2019See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Bergamasco , 197 A.3d 805 , 813 (Pa. Super. 2018) ; Commonwealth v. Borovichka , 18 A.3d 1242 , 1250 (Pa. Super. 2011) ; Commonwealth v. Hilliar , 943 A.2d 984 , 992 (Pa. Super. 2008) ; Commonwealth v. Henry , 943 A.2d 967 , 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) ; Commonwealth v. Peters , 915 A.2d 1213 , 1222 (Pa. Super. 2007) ; Commonwealth v. Chernosky , 874 A.2d 123 , 129-30 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc); Commonwealth v. McPeak , 708 A.2d 1263 , 1267 (Pa. Super. 1998) ; Commonwealth v. Garnett , 418 Pa.Super. 58 , 613 A.2d 569 , 572 (1992) ; Commonwealth v. Fetsick , 392 Pa.Super.

2019See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Bergamasco , 197 A.3d 805 , 813 (Pa. Super. 2018) ; Commonwealth v. Borovichka , 18 A.3d 1242 , 1250 (Pa. Super. 2011) ; Commonwealth v. Hilliar , 943 A.2d 984 , 992 (Pa. Super. 2008) ; Commonwealth v. Henry , 943 A.2d 967 , 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) ; Commonwealth v. Peters , 915 A.2d 1213 , 1222 (Pa. Super. 2007) ; Commonwealth v. Chernosky , 874 A.2d 123 , 129-30 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc); Commonwealth v. McPeak , 708 A.2d 1263 , 1267 (Pa. Super. 1998) ; Commonwealth v. Garnett , 418 Pa.Super. 58 , 613 A.2d 569 , 572 (1992) ; Commonwealth v. Fetsick , 392 Pa.Super.

2019See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Bergamasco , 197 A.3d 805 , 813 (Pa. Super. 2018) ; Commonwealth v. Borovichka , 18 A.3d 1242 , 1250 (Pa. Super. 2011) ; Commonwealth v. Hilliar , 943 A.2d 984 , 992 (Pa. Super. 2008) ; Commonwealth v. Henry , 943 A.2d 967 , 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) ; Commonwealth v. Peters , 915 A.2d 1213 , 1222 (Pa. Super. 2007) ; Commonwealth v. Chernosky , 874 A.2d 123 , 129-30 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc); Commonwealth v. McPeak , 708 A.2d 1263 , 1267 (Pa. Super. 1998) ; Commonwealth v. Garnett , 418 Pa.Super. 58 , 613 A.2d 569 , 572 (1992) ; Commonwealth v. Fetsick , 392 Pa.Super.

2008The Chemosky Court further noted that the spirit, or purpose of, the MPJA “is to proscribe investigatory, extraterritorial forays used to acquire additional evidence where probable cause does not yet exist.” Id. at 130, citing Commonwealth v. Laird, 797 A.2d 995, 999 (Pa.Super.2002). ¶ 16 Chemosky unquestionably sets forth the proper standard this Court is to employ in determining whether the exclusionary rule should act to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to an MPJA violation.

2008The Chemosky Court further noted that the spirit, or purpose of, the MPJA “is to proscribe investigatory, extraterritorial forays used to acquire additional evidence where probable cause does not yet exist.” Id. at 130, citing Commonwealth v. Laird, 797 A.2d 995, 999 (Pa.Super.2002). ¶ 16 Chemosky unquestionably sets forth the proper standard this Court is to employ in determining whether the exclusionary rule should act to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to an MPJA violation.