Commonwealth v. Polo
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSaylor, Justice
I join in the majority’s disposition, as I believe that the seizure of contraband from Appellee’s bag was tainted by an illegal detention under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. In this regard, the applicable test, set forth in Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991), is whether, in the totality of the circumstances, the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that the person was not free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. Id. at 439, 111 S.Ct. at 2389.1 Regardless of the ostensible consent of a bus…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Whren v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Florida v. BostickSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Ohio v. RobinetteSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Commonwealth v. EdmundsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Commonwealth v. StricklerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.