In the Interest of D.M.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
*424 OPINION
CAPPY, Justice.
The sole issue presented in the instant appeal is whether the police officer demonstrated the requisite cause to stop appellant pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. For the reasons stated herein, we determine that the officer did not possess the requisite cause to stop appellant, and accordingly, reverse the court below.
As the issue before us arises from the ruling of the suppression court, our standard of review is limited. When reviewing rulings of a suppression court, we must…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Alabama v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Commonwealth v. CookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Commonwealth v. JacksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Commonwealth v. CortezSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
3Cited by23 opinions
- In the Interest of D.M.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Commonwealth v. WallsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Commonwealth v. McCleaseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Commonwealth v. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Commonwealth v. MoyeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.