Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Doria

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 3, 1990No. 00482Published

1DissentMontemuro, Judge

Following my review of the record before us in this case, I must respectfully dissent. Based upon the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 107 S.Ct. 1149, 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), I would affirm the trial court’s order suppressing the leather jacket and coin sets. I agree with the majority’s determination that probable cause existed to support the issuance of the search warrant, and that, consequently, the police could validly enter the residence of Doria’s mother to search for the items listed in the search warrant. I do not agree, however, that the police,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Arizona v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Commonwealth v. LemanskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. State v. RuscoeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  5. Commonwealth v. CarelliSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

10 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