Commonwealth v. Castro

161 A.3d 798

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Commonwealth v. Castro. Read the opinion of the Court — 625 Pa. 582 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 22, 2016·No. No. 310 EAL 2016·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) In view of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), and Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981), did the Superior Court err in concluding that an arrest warrant for Earnest Moreno authorized entry into the residence of Angel Romero and Wendy Castro for the purpose of executing the arrest warrant?

(2) Did the Superior Court apply an erroneous standard of review regarding the suppression court’s finding of fact that the authorities did not have express permission to enter the residence of Angel Romero and Wendy Castro?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) In view of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), and Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981), did the Superior Court err in concluding that an arrest warrant for Earnest Moreno authorized entry into the residence of Angel Romero and Wendy Castro for the purpose of executing the arrest warrant?

(2) Did the Superior Court apply an erroneous standard of review regarding the suppression court’s finding of fact that the authorities did not have express permission to enter the residence of Angel Romero and Wendy Castro?

Commonwealth v. Castro, 161 A.3d 798 (Pa. 2016).

Pincite

161 A.3d 798 (Commonwealth v. Castro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Payton v. New York

445 U.S. 573 (Supreme Court, 1980)

Steagald v. United States

451 U.S. 204 (Supreme Court, 1981)

Opinion

Related