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.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2022 1 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. Grundzagreen1 sentence2022See Commonwealth v. Grundza, 819 A.2d 66, 68 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding an appellate court does not make findings of fact and conclusions of law in the first instance and that the suppression court’s failure to do so precludes appellate review). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Templingreen1 sentence2019See also 13 J -A11004-19 Commonwealth v. Templin, 795 A.2d 959, 961 (Pa. 2002) ("The determination of whether a confession is voluntary is a conclusion of law and, as such, is subject to plenary review."). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Spottigreen1 sentence2019Consequently, the Commonwealth argues that we should deny Appellant relief because “[i]t was, of course, [his] burden as the appellant to provide this Court with a complete record.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 7 (citing, inter alia, Commonwealth v. Spotti, 94 A.3d 367, 381 (Pa. Super. 2014)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bosurgigreen2 sentences1975After the conviction of a defendant following the denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence, a defendant “will then have an opportunity to secure an appellate evaluation of the propriety and admissibility of such evidence.” Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 64 , 190 A.2d 304, 309 (1963). 1975After the conviction of a defendant following the denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence, a defendant “will then have an opportunity to secure an appellate evaluation of the propriety and admissibility of such evidence.” Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 64 , 190 A.2d 304, 309 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Michigan v. Long
green
2 sentences2013The Majority correctly utilizes the reasonable suspicion standard articulated in Michigan v. Long, 468 U.S. 1032 , 103 S.Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983). 1 See Majority Opinion at 298. 2013The Majority correctly utilizes the reasonable suspicion standard articulated in Michigan v. Long, 468 U.S. 1032 , 103 S.Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983). 1 See Majority Opinion at 298. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza
green
1 sentence2013The Majority correctly utilizes the reasonable suspicion standard articulated in Michigan v. Long, 468 U.S. 1032 , 103 S.Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983). 1 See Majority Opinion at 298. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Spinelli v. United States
red
2 sentences1973Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S. Ct. 584 (1969). *328 To sustain its burden of establishing probable cause for the arrest here, the Commonwealth at the suppression hearing relied completely on the testimony of one of the arresting officers. 1973Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S. Ct. 584 (1969). *328 To sustain its burden of establishing probable cause for the arrest here, the Commonwealth at the suppression hearing relied completely on the testimony of one of the arresting officers. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Dyke v. Taylor Implement Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences1971Co., 391 U.S. 216 , 88 S. Ct. 1472 (1968), and Brinegar v. United States, supra. Mere suspicion or good faith on the part of the officers is not enough: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968), and Brinegar v. United States, supra. Nor may the fruits of the search be used to justify it.” There is no question of the good faith on the part of Officer Mullen in this case as to the arousal of his suspicions; but the testimony presented by the Commonwealth at the suppression hearing, in our opinion, did not overcome its burden to prove that it did not need to obtain a search warrant, part 1971Co., 391 U.S. 216 , 88 S. Ct. 1472 (1968), and Brinegar v. United States, supra. Mere suspicion or good faith on the part of the officers is not enough: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968), and Brinegar v. United States, supra. Nor may the fruits of the search be used to justify it.” There is no question of the good faith on the part of Officer Mullen in this case as to the arousal of his suspicions; but the testimony presented by the Commonwealth at the suppression hearing, in our opinion, did not overcome its burden to prove that it did not need to obtain a search warrant, part | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1971Co., 391 U.S. 216 , 88 S. Ct. 1472 (1968), and Brinegar v. United States, supra. Mere suspicion or good faith on the part of the officers is not enough: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968), and Brinegar v. United States, supra. Nor may the fruits of the search be used to justify it.” There is no question of the good faith on the part of Officer Mullen in this case as to the arousal of his suspicions; but the testimony presented by the Commonwealth at the suppression hearing, in our opinion, did not overcome its burden to prove that it did not need to obtain a search warrant, part 1971Co., 391 U.S. 216 , 88 S. Ct. 1472 (1968), and Brinegar v. United States, supra. Mere suspicion or good faith on the part of the officers is not enough: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968), and Brinegar v. United States, supra. Nor may the fruits of the search be used to justify it.” There is no question of the good faith on the part of Officer Mullen in this case as to the arousal of his suspicions; but the testimony presented by the Commonwealth at the suppression hearing, in our opinion, did not overcome its burden to prove that it did not need to obtain a search warrant, part | 1 | 1971–1971 |