Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. McPeak

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 17, 1998No. 3682Published

1DissentPopovich, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority since I am convinced that the Philadelphia Police Officers were not authorized to arrest appellant in Cheltenham Township pursuant to the Statewide Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act (MPJA).1 Accordingly, I would find that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the officers’ unauthorized actions.

The issue on appeal is whether the officers had the authority to arrest appellant in Chel-tenham Township. It is clear that Chelten-ham Township was outside the officers’ primary…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. MagwoodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Commonwealth v. StasiakSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. Commonwealth v. BrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Commonwealth v. DontonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Commonwealth v. FischerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

2 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