Commonwealth v. Dougalewicz, Jr., R., Pet

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Dougalewicz, Jr., R., Pet

123 A.3d 1063

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 16, 2015

Docket165 WAL 2015 (Granted)

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.3d 1063 (Commonwealth v. Dougalewicz, Jr., R., Pet) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Dougalewicz, Jr., R., Pet, 123 A.3d 1063 (Pa. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, condensed for brevity, are:

(1) Did the Superior Court err when it ruled that suppression was not a remedy available to the Court when stored electronic communications are seized pursuant to an illegally issued warrant?

(2) Did the Court err in ruling that the search and seizure of stored electronic communications pursuant to an illegally issued search warrant for evidence located outside of the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation of the individual’s privacy rights as guaranteed by Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution or the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, condensed for brevity, are:

(1) Did the Superior Court err when it ruled that suppression was not a remedy available to the Court when stored electronic communications are seized pursuant to an illegally issued warrant?

(2) Did the Court err in ruling that the search and seizure of stored electronic communications pursuant to an illegally issued search warrant for evidence located outside of the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation of the individual’s privacy rights as guaranteed by Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution or the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.3d 1063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-dougalewicz-jr-r-pet-pa-2015.