Commonwealth v. Austin
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
1Opinion of the Court
PICCIONE, J.,
— Before the court for disposition is defendant’s omnibus motion for pretrial relief in the form of a motion to suppress evidence. Where a motion to suppress has been filed, the burden *300is on the Commonwealth to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence is admissible. Commonwealth v. DeMark, 800 A.2d 947 (Pa. Super. 2002).
Defendant asserts that any and all evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant should be suppressed because there was insufficient probable cause to issue the search warrant. According to the language in Pa.R.Crim.P. 203 and as…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Commonwealth v. EdmundsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Commonwealth v. LemanskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2372, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4240 United States of America v. Mary Peggy Moore, United States of America v. Lee Roy WileyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Commonwealth v. GraySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.