Legal Opinion

COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Kline

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 22, 1999PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

We granted allowance of appeal in this case to determine whether a county deputy sheriff, who has completed the deputy sheriffs basic training course, the driving while under the influence modules given to municipal police officers under Act 120, 1 and training in field sobriety test administration, qualifies as a “police officer” for purposes of enforcing the Vehicle Code under the rationale of this Court’s holding in Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89, 641 A.2d 299 (1994). The Commonwealth Court held that the foregoing training failed to meet the requirements of Leet.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. LeetSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. BoucherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Commonwealth v. RooseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Commonwealth v. RooseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Kline v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver LicensingCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. LoveSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. Kopko v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Commonwealth v. BennettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Commonwealth v. DobbinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. McKinley v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

24 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