Commonwealth v. Valdivia, R.
165 A.3d 869, 2017 WL 444717, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 234
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 1, 2017
Docket637 MAL 2016 (Granted)
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases
This text of 165 A.3d 869 (Commonwealth v. Valdivia, R.) 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. Valdivia, R., 165 A.3d 869, 2017 WL 444717, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 234 (Pa. 2017).
Opinion
ORDER
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
Related
Commonwealth v. Valdivia, R., Aplt.
195 A.3d 855 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2018)
Com. v. McVeigh, D.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2017
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
165 A.3d 869, 2017 WL 444717, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-valdivia-r-pa-2017.