Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Commonwealth v. Galendez

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 24, 2011PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY

LAZARUS, J.:

I join in the majority’s decision regarding the validity of Galendez’s probation and parole condition which authorized random searches of his residence and was imposed two days after sentencing. The probationary condition is not only invalid because it was entered without notice to or in the presence of Galendez and his attorney two days following sentencing, but, as our full Court held in Commonwealth v. Alexander, 16 A.3d 1152 (Pa.Super.2011), such conditions are illegal when they are *1049not based upon reasonable suspicion. Moreover, with regard…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. CookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  2. Commonwealth v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  3. Commonwealth v. RodriguezSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Commonwealth v. WilsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  5. Commonwealth v. AlexanderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Com. v. Heidelberg, C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API