Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 29, 2009No. 33 EAP 2008Published

1DissentJustice Todd

I respectfully, but vigorously, dissent from the Majority’s conclusion that Appellant’s immediate arrest was supported by the requisite, constitutionally-mandated probable cause.1 In order to safeguard the inviolate right of the people of this Commonwealth to be free from unlawful seizures of their persons by the government, our Court has steadfastly enforced the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against arrest in the absence of probable cause. We have, for over 35 years, through our decisions in Commonwealth v. Lawson, 454 Pa. 23, 309 A.2d 391 (1973); Commonwealth v. Banks, 540 Pa. 453, 658…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Brinegar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  3. Payne v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Henry v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  5. Commonwealth v. BennettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007

34 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