Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Com. of Pa. v. Romero

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 26, 2018No. 37 EAP 2016; No. 38 EAP 2016Published

1Concurrence

JUSTICE MUNDY, Concurring

I join Part II(A) of the Opinion regarding the resolution of the factual consent issue in full and agree the Superior Court misapplied its standard and scope of review. See Op. at 377-78. I further agree with a significant portion of the lead opinion's reasoning as well as its mandate to remand to the trial court to give the Commonwealth the opportunity to introduce the arrest warrant to ascertain whether it provided a basis for the search of Appellants' home. I write separately to explain how my analysis differs from the lead opinion's.

As the lead opinion observes,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Wilson v. LayneSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Michigan v. SummersSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Maryland v. BuieSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. Steagald v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981

8 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