Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Monarch

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 23, 2019No. 1 WAP 2018PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE DOUGHERTY

We granted discretionary review to determine whether the enhanced sentence imposed on appellant, Samuel Anthony Monarch, due to his failure to submit to chemical testing was unconstitutional. The Superior Court acknowledged enhanced penalties for a failure to submit to warrantless blood testing violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016), but nevertheless determined appellant's enhanced sentence was…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  2. Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert BernardSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
  3. Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hopkins, K.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  4. Commonwealth v. HolmesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. Commonwealth v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Com. v. Matthews, C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
  2. Com. v. Matthews, C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
  3. Commonwealth v. BraddockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  4. State v. Scott W. ForrettWisconsin Supreme Court · 2022
  5. State v. Scott W. ForrettWisconsin Supreme Court · 2022

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API