Commonwealth v. Czajkowski
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rhodes, P. J.,
Defendant has appealed from a conviction and sentence on a charge of burglary. The conviction rested in part on circumstantial evidence which showed that defendant’s car was observed at the scene of the crime. *513Furthermore, paint chips and burglary tools were found by the police in defendant’s car parked in front of the police station following defendant’s arrest. At the trial on June 7, 1961, defendant moved to exclude such evidence for the reason that it was allegedly obtained under circumstances amounting to an unreasonable search and seizure. The court below refused…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Draper v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- United States v. RabinowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- DiBella v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ZelnickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Commonwealth v. CockfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Commonwealth v. ScullSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Commonwealth v. ManciniSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Bowers v. RundleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.