Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Elliott

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 5, 1988No. 67 and 68Published

1DissentJohnson, Judge

I am obliged to dissent.' Appellees in their brief contend that the stopping of the motor vehicle was unlawful. I *555agree. I would affirm the orders of the suppression court on a different rationale. An appellate court may affirm a trial court where it is correct on any ground. Gerace v. Holmes Protection of Philadelphia, 357 Pa.Super. 467, 516 A.2d 354 (1986), appeal denied, 515 Pa. 580, 527 A.2d 541 (1987). The task of this Court in reviewing the decision in a suppression hearing is to determine whether the factual findings of the suppression court are supported by the record, for the law is…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. WhiteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. Gerace v. Holmes Protection of Phila.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  3. Commonwealth v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  4. Commonwealth v. BurrellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  5. Commonwealth v. GilbertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API