Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In the Interest of S.J.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 19, 1998No. 24 E.D.Appeal Docket 1996Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCappy, Justice

Although I agree with the majority in reversing the decision of the Superior Court, I reach that result by a different path. First, I do not agree that the officer’s decision to frisk appellant violated the parameters of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Second, as I find the frisk was permissible, I would go on to reach the question of *645whether the “plain feel” doctrine as enunciated in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993), is consistent with the privacy interests provided to the citizens of this Commonwealth under Article…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Michigan v. LongSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Ker v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Minnesota v. DickersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. Harris v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968

33 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