place warning in Pennsylvania

2022Riggins, 304 A.2d at 477 -78 (quoting Commonwealth v. Bennett, 282 A.2d 276, 280 (Pa. 1971)).

2022Riggins, 304 A.2d at 477 -78 (quoting Commonwealth v. Bennett, 282 A.2d 276, 280 (Pa. 1971)).

2020Va. Code § 55 -2A-2 (“The period of limitation applicable to a claim accruing outside of this state shall be either that prescribed by the law of the place where the claim accrued or by the law of this state, whichever bars the claim.”); Willey, 719 S.E.2d at 718 .

2020Va. Code § 55 -2A-2 (“The period of limitation applicable to a claim accruing outside of this state shall be either that prescribed by the law of the place where the claim accrued or by the law of this state, whichever bars the claim.”); Willey, 719 S.E.2d at 718 .

1987From the holding in [Commonwealth v.] Krall, [ 452 Pa. 215 , 304 A.2d 488 (1973) ], it is clear that the proper place to challenge the validity of an arrest is before the authority who first determines probable cause, or in this case, before the magistrate.

1987From the holding in [Commonwealth v.] Krall, [ 452 Pa. 215 , 304 A.2d 488 (1973) ], it is clear that the proper place to challenge the validity of an arrest is before the authority who first determines probable cause, or in this case, before the magistrate.

1977See also United States v. Osterburg, 423 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1970); Brown v. State, 6 Md.App. 564 , 252 A.2d 272 (1969); Franklin v. State, 6 Md.App. 572 , 252 A.2d 487 (1969). “ ‘Pertinent to such an inquiry are the length of time between the warnings and the challenged interrogation, whether the interrogation was conducted at the same place where the warnings were given, whether the officer who gave the warnings also conducted the questioning, and whether statements obtained are materially different from other statements that may have been made at the time of the warnings.’ Bennett, supra 445

1977See also United States v. Osterburg, 423 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1970); Brown v. State, 6 Md.App. 564 , 252 A.2d 272 (1969); Franklin v. State, 6 Md.App. 572 , 252 A.2d 487 (1969). “ ‘Pertinent to such an inquiry are the length of time between the warnings and the challenged interrogation, whether the interrogation was conducted at the same place where the warnings were given, whether the officer who gave the warnings also conducted the questioning, and whether statements obtained are materially different from other statements that may have been made at the time of the warnings.’ Bennett, supra 445

1977See also United States v. Osterburg, 423 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1970); Brown v. State, 6 Md.App. 564 , 252 A.2d 272 (1969); Franklin v. State, 6 Md.App. 572 , 252 A.2d 487 (1969). “ ‘Pertinent to such an inquiry are the length of time between the warnings and the challenged interrogation, whether the interrogation was conducted at the same place where the warnings were given, whether the officer who gave the warnings also conducted the questioning, and whether statements obtained are materially different from other statements that may have been made at the time of the warnings.’ Bennett, supra 445

1977See also United States v. Osterburg, 423 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1970); Brown v. State, 6 Md.App. 564 , 252 A.2d 272 (1969); Franklin v. State, 6 Md.App. 572 , 252 A.2d 487 (1969). “ ‘Pertinent to such an inquiry are the length of time between the warnings and the challenged interrogation, whether the interrogation was conducted at the same place where the warnings were given, whether the officer who gave the warnings also conducted the questioning, and whether statements obtained are materially different from other statements that may have been made at the time of the warnings.’ Bennett, supra 445

1977See also United States v. Osterburg, 423 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1970); Brown v. State, 6 Md.App. 564 , 252 A.2d 272 (1969); Franklin v. State, 6 Md.App. 572 , 252 A.2d 487 (1969). “ ‘Pertinent to such an inquiry are the length of time between the warnings and the challenged interrogation, whether the interrogation was conducted at the same place where the warnings were given, whether the officer who gave the warnings also conducted the questioning, and whether statements obtained are materially different from other statements that may have been made at the time of the warnings.’ Bennett, supra 445

1977See also United States v. Osterburg, 423 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1970); Brown v. State, 6 Md.App. 564 , 252 A.2d 272 (1969); Franklin v. State, 6 Md.App. 572 , 252 A.2d 487 (1969). “ ‘Pertinent to such an inquiry are the length of time between the warnings and the challenged interrogation, whether the interrogation was conducted at the same place where the warnings were given, whether the officer who gave the warnings also conducted the questioning, and whether statements obtained are materially different from other statements that may have been made at the time of the warnings.’ Bennett, supra 445

2022In 1864, an exception to the place requirement was introduced to the Constitution with the introduction of “absentee voting.” Its very name, “absentee,” relates back to the Section 1 requirement that electors vote in person at a polling place. 25 Our Supreme Court has specifically held that the phrase “offer to vote” requires the physical presence of the elector, whose “ballot cannot be sent by mail or express, nor can it be cast outside of all Pennsylvania election districts and certified into the county where the voter has his domicile.” Chase, 41 Pa. at 419 .

1998Factors to be consid *397 ered are: “‘the length of time between the warning and the challenged interrogation, whether the interrogation was conducted at the same place where the warnings were given, whether the officer who gave the warnings also conducted the questioning and whether statements obtained are materially different from other statements that may have been made at the time of the warnings.’ ” Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Bennett, 445 Pa. 8, 15 , 282 A.2d 276, 280 (1971).

1987Once the local magistrate determined there was sufficient probable cause to hold appellant for court, “... it was not possible for appellant to show ... that his custody was not based on a finding of probable cause made by a judicial officer.” 452 Pa. at 221 , 304 A.2d at 491 . 235 Pa.Super. .at 177-78, 340 A.2d at 903 .

1976They say that the appellants cannot be found guilty ‘unless there was some evidence of corn in the pond in a quantity and in a place which was a violation of the regulation’, that is, ‘capable of attracting such birds.’ ” “. . . whether they did so by the indirect method of so baiting before the season as to create an attraction for the birds after the season opened or by the direct method of placing the grain in the water in front of the blinds during the hunting season ...” The court also cites the case of Cerritos Gun Club et al. v. Hall, 96 F. 2d 620 (9th Cir., 1938).

1976In Boyle v. Department of Transportation, 19 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 22 , 339 A.2d 834 (1975), the police officer told the arrested operator that he had the right to take the test if he desired and that he did not have to take the test if he didn’t want to.

1976In Boyle v. Department of Transportation, 19 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 22 , 339 A.2d 834 (1975), the police officer told the arrested operator that he had the right to take the test if he desired and that he did not have to take the test if he didn’t want to.

1976The appellant cites as authority, Department of Transportation v. Guarino, 19 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 104 , 339 A.2d 861 (1975), where we held that an operator who remains silent when requested to submit to the test, cannot be found to have refused when he was never taken to the place where the test was to be administered and there asked to submit to the test.

1976The appellant cites as authority, Department of Transportation v. Guarino, 19 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 104 , 339 A.2d 861 (1975), where we held that an operator who remains silent when requested to submit to the test, cannot be found to have refused when he was never taken to the place where the test was to be administered and there asked to submit to the test.

1974In Commonwealth v. Contakos, 455 Pa. 136 , 314 A.2d 259 (1974), we held that “enforcement of the rule in the instant trial proceedings requires the grant of a new trial.” Id. at 138 , 314 A.2d at 261 .

1974In Commonwealth v. Contakos, 455 Pa. 136 , 314 A.2d 259 (1974), we held that “enforcement of the rule in the instant trial proceedings requires the grant of a new trial.” Id. at 138 , 314 A.2d at 261 .

1969In all of the cases cited by the Commonwealth the justice of the peace who is located nearest to the place of violation had either been requested to accept jurisdiction and had directly refused to accept same or had declared he had no seal and was not open for business or by stipulation of counsel it was agreed that such nearest justice of the peace was not actively engaged to perform the duties of his office: Commonwealth v. Esayian, 182 Pa. Superior Ct. 146 ; Commonwealth v. Black, 42 D. & C. 2d 312; Commonwealth v. Gill, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 223 .

1969In all of the cases cited by the Commonwealth the justice of the peace who is located nearest to the place of violation had either been requested to accept jurisdiction and had directly refused to accept same or had declared he had no seal and was not open for business or by stipulation of counsel it was agreed that such nearest justice of the peace was not actively engaged to perform the duties of his office: Commonwealth v. Esayian, 182 Pa. Superior Ct. 146 ; Commonwealth v. Black, 42 D. & C. 2d 312; Commonwealth v. Gill, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 223 .