Commonwealth v. Santiago

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Santiago

179 A.3d 455

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 22, 2018·No. No. 318 EAL 2017·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED to the following issue, as stated by Petitioner:

Is not the Superior Court's published opinion applying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to in-court identification testimony inconsistent with controlling Fourth Amendment United States Supreme Court precedent and Article I, § 8, and does not its reliance on overly broad language in Commonwealth v. Garvin, 448 Pa. 258, 293 A.2d 33 (1972), necessitate this Court's guidance and explicit rejection of Garvin and its progeny?

The Petition is otherwise DENIED.

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

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED to the following issue, as stated by Petitioner:

Is not the Superior Court's published opinion applying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to in-court identification testimony inconsistent with controlling Fourth Amendment United States Supreme Court precedent and Article I, § 8, and does not its reliance on overly broad language in Commonwealth v. Garvin, 448 Pa. 258, 293 A.2d 33 (1972), necessitate this Court's guidance and explicit rejection of Garvin and its progeny?

The Petition is otherwise DENIED.

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 179 A.3d 455 (Pa. 2018).

Pincite

179 A.3d 455 (Commonwealth v. Santiago) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related