Commonwealth v. Mack

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Mack

764 A.2d 1, 564 Pa. 2, 2000 Pa. LEXIS 3066

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 20, 2000·No. Petition No. 915 Eastern District Allocatur 1999·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 2000, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, limited to the following issue:

Did the Superior Court err in affirming the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the search of her luggage, based on the court’s determination that Petitioner validly consented to the search of her luggage when, after confining her in the airport security office, the police told her that she could consent to an immediate search or they would get a warrant?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 2000, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, limited to the following issue:

Did the Superior Court err in affirming the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the search of her luggage, based on the court’s determination that Petitioner validly consented to the search of her luggage when, after confining her in the airport security office, the police told her that she could consent to an immediate search or they would get a warrant?

Commonwealth v. Mack, 764 A.2d 1, 564 Pa. 2, 2000 Pa. LEXIS 3066 (Pa. 2000).

Pincite

764 A.2d 1 (Commonwealth v. Mack) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related