Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. Peters
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided February 19, 2009No. 38 WAP 2007PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Chief Justice CASTILLE.
The order of the Superior Court is affirmed for the reasons ably set forth in the Superior Court opinion, which opinion is adopted as the opinion of this Court on the “hot” and “fresh pursuit” question. See Commonwealth v. Peters, 915 A.2d 1213 (Pa.Super.2007). We supplement the opinion as follows.
This Court granted review to determine whether the extraterritorial arrest of appellant was authorized under the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act (“MPJA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8951-8954, specifically, the MPJA’s “hot pursuit” exception, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a)(2). Section 8953…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Commonwealth v. O'SheaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Martin v. DOT, Bureau of Driver LicensingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Commonwealth v. MerchantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Commonwealth v. MagwoodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Commonwealth v. LehmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ColeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- Commonwealth v. LeeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Com. v. Hobel, S.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2022
- Commonwealth v. ReigelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Com. v. Collins, J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.