Commonwealth v. Valdivia, R.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Valdivia, R.

165 A.3d 869, 2017 WL 444717, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 234

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 1, 2017·No. 637 MAL 2016 (Granted)·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Whether, in a case of first impression, the Superior Court erred in holding that a reasonable person would have understood that their consent to a roadside search of their vehicle would encompass a canine sniff of all of the packages contained inside the vehicle, and that said consent was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary where the police officers withheld pertinent information about the forthcoming search from Petitioner, including that the canine search would not start any sooner than an hour from when Petitioner’s consent was given?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Whether, in a case of first impression, the Superior Court erred in holding that a reasonable person would have understood that their consent to a roadside search of their vehicle would encompass a canine sniff of all of the packages contained inside the vehicle, and that said consent was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary where the police officers withheld pertinent information about the forthcoming search from Petitioner, including that the canine search would not start any sooner than an hour from when Petitioner’s consent was given?

Commonwealth v. Valdivia, R., 165 A.3d 869, 2017 WL 444717, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 234 (Pa. 2017).

Pincite

165 A.3d 869 (Commonwealth v. Valdivia, R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related