Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Jandagreen1 sentence2023For these reasons, we cannot say the suppression court committed an error of law in ____________________________________________ determination where police obtained a search warrant seven months later for a suspect’s residence to search for footwear the suspect had worn during a burglary, and concluded, in part, and apparently utilizing a categorical assumption, that “shoes, unlike drugs, are not an item commonly disposed of soon after they come into their owner's possession,” and, therefore, there was a fair probability they would be found in the suspect’s residence. 14 A.3d 147, 159 (Pa. Sup | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hutchinsongreen1 sentence2023Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, this Court, again in reliance on categorical assumptions, upheld an order denying suppression of the fruits of the search of a robbery suspect’s home, and concluded that “the items seized, a shirt and a gun, were each of a type reasonably likely to be found in the perpetrator’s home, especially given the short period of time [unspecified] between the commission of the crimes and the application for the search warrant.” 434 A.2d 740, 743 (Pa. Super. 1981). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. McClearygreen2 sentences2021Commonwealth’s Brief at 4-5. -8- J-E02004-21 Standard of Review “When reviewing the grant of a suppression motion, we must determine whether the record supports the trial court’s factual findings and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct.” Commonwealth v. McCleary, 193 A.3d 387 , 390 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). 2021Commonwealth’s Brief at 4-5. -8- J-E02004-21 Standard of Review “When reviewing the grant of a suppression motion, we must determine whether the record supports the trial court’s factual findings and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct.” Commonwealth v. McCleary, 193 A.3d 387, 390 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Diegogreen1 sentence2020I don’t give a fuck.” Id. at *3. [J-82-2019] - 9 The Superior Court also concluded the suppression court committed an error of law because “[t]he mutual consent exception permits interception of conversations in instances where the defendant ‘knew or should have known, that the conversation was being recorded.’” Id. at *5 (citing Commonwealth v. Diego, 119 A.3d 370, 377 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 129 A.3d 1240 (Pa. 2015)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Snydergreen1 sentence2016In this vein, the suppression court explained: “[B]ad faith is required for a due process violation where merely potentially useful evidence is destroyed, no matter how useful to the prosecution.” Commonwealth v. Snyder, 963 A.2d 396, 404 (Pa. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Bouchergreen1 sentence2015See Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Boucher, 691 A.2d 450, 454 (Pa. 1997) (failure to supply a sufficient breath sample deemed a refusal to submit to testing). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2007Appellant filed a timely appeal to this Court in which he raises the following single issue for our review: *1206 Whether the suppression court committed an error of law in failing to recognize that a vehicle stop based solely on the presence of fresh damage to the vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment and mandates that all evidence obtained as a result of that stop be suppressed, as this Court expressly held in Commonwealth v. Edwards, 355 Pa.Super. 311, 316 , 513 A.2d 445, 447 (1986). 2007Appellant filed a timely appeal to this Court in which he raises the following single issue for our review: *1206 Whether the suppression court committed an error of law in failing to recognize that a vehicle stop based solely on the presence of fresh damage to the vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment and mandates that all evidence obtained as a result of that stop be suppressed, as this Court expressly held in Commonwealth v. Edwards, 355 Pa.Super. 311, 316 , 513 A.2d 445, 447 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Lyons
green
2 sentences2018Lyons, 79 A.3d at 1064 . 2018Lyons , 79 A.3d at 1064 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Gleason
green
1 sentence2023Whether the suppression court committed an error of law / abuse of discretion in its reliance upon Commonwealth v. Gleason, . . . 785 A.2d 983 ([Pa.] 2001), which has been specifically overruled by statute, in granting the suppression motion? 2. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Adams v. Giroux
neutral
1 sentence2020The court criticized the suppression court’s “hyper-technical analysis . . . that in these instances, the Commonwealth must always establish on the record that the inmate had the telephone to his ear, listened to the message that announced the conversation may be recorded, and then consented to the message.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Com. v. Diego
neutral
1 sentence2020I don’t give a fuck.” Id. at *3. [J-82-2019] - 9 The Superior Court also concluded the suppression court committed an error of law because “[t]he mutual consent exception permits interception of conversations in instances where the defendant ‘knew or should have known, that the conversation was being recorded.’” Id. at *5 (citing Commonwealth v. Diego, 119 A.3d 370, 377 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 129 A.3d 1240 (Pa. 2015)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick
green
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Commonwealth v. Daniels
green
2 sentences1984United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 , 94 S.Ct. 1234 , 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974); Commonwealth v. Daniels, 474 Pa. 173 , 377 A.2d 1376 (1977); Commonwealth v. Hrynkow, 457 Pa. 529 , 330 A.2d 858 (1974). *540 Although our research on this issue has failed to disclose a case directly on point, and none has been cited to us by either counsel or the lower court, we hold that the suppression court committed no error in refusing to suppress the use of appellant’s boots where, as here, they were lawfully seized by the police in Northumberland County as evidence of a crime committed in that county and s 1984United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 , 94 S.Ct. 1234 , 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974); Commonwealth v. Daniels, 474 Pa. 173 , 377 A.2d 1376 (1977); Commonwealth v. Hrynkow, 457 Pa. 529 , 330 A.2d 858 (1974). *540 Although our research on this issue has failed to disclose a case directly on point, and none has been cited to us by either counsel or the lower court, we hold that the suppression court committed no error in refusing to suppress the use of appellant’s boots where, as here, they were lawfully seized by the police in Northumberland County as evidence of a crime committed in that county and s | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Commonwealth v. Hrynkow
green
2 sentences1984United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 , 94 S.Ct. 1234 , 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974); Commonwealth v. Daniels, 474 Pa. 173 , 377 A.2d 1376 (1977); Commonwealth v. Hrynkow, 457 Pa. 529 , 330 A.2d 858 (1974). *540 Although our research on this issue has failed to disclose a case directly on point, and none has been cited to us by either counsel or the lower court, we hold that the suppression court committed no error in refusing to suppress the use of appellant’s boots where, as here, they were lawfully seized by the police in Northumberland County as evidence of a crime committed in that county and s 1984United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 , 94 S.Ct. 1234 , 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974); Commonwealth v. Daniels, 474 Pa. 173 , 377 A.2d 1376 (1977); Commonwealth v. Hrynkow, 457 Pa. 529 , 330 A.2d 858 (1974). *540 Although our research on this issue has failed to disclose a case directly on point, and none has been cited to us by either counsel or the lower court, we hold that the suppression court committed no error in refusing to suppress the use of appellant’s boots where, as here, they were lawfully seized by the police in Northumberland County as evidence of a crime committed in that county and s | 1 | 1984–1984 |
United States v. Edwards
green
2 sentences1984United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 , 94 S.Ct. 1234 , 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974); Commonwealth v. Daniels, 474 Pa. 173 , 377 A.2d 1376 (1977); Commonwealth v. Hrynkow, 457 Pa. 529 , 330 A.2d 858 (1974). *540 Although our research on this issue has failed to disclose a case directly on point, and none has been cited to us by either counsel or the lower court, we hold that the suppression court committed no error in refusing to suppress the use of appellant’s boots where, as here, they were lawfully seized by the police in Northumberland County as evidence of a crime committed in that county and s 1984United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 , 94 S.Ct. 1234 , 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974); Commonwealth v. Daniels, 474 Pa. 173 , 377 A.2d 1376 (1977); Commonwealth v. Hrynkow, 457 Pa. 529 , 330 A.2d 858 (1974). *540 Although our research on this issue has failed to disclose a case directly on point, and none has been cited to us by either counsel or the lower court, we hold that the suppression court committed no error in refusing to suppress the use of appellant’s boots where, as here, they were lawfully seized by the police in Northumberland County as evidence of a crime committed in that county and s | 1 | 1984–1984 |