Commonwealth v. Lindblom

OPINION BY

HUDOCK, J.:

¶ 1 In this appeal, the Commonwealth asserts that the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s suppression motion.1 Appellee filed the motion after he was charged with two counts of driving under the influence and one count of careless driving.2 We reverse and remand for trial.

¶ 2 The standard of review employed by an appellate court when reviewing the grant of a suppression motion has been summarized by our Supreme Court:

We begin by noting that where a motion to suppress has been filed, the burden is on the Commonwealth to establish by a preponderance of the evidence…