Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Three Hundred Ten Thousand Twenty Dollars

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 8, 2006Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge FRIEDMAN.

I respectfully dissent. This case presents to this court an issue of first impression, i.e., whether ion scan test comparisons involving multiple samples of seized money are sufficient in a forfeiture proceeding to establish a nexus between the seized money and illegal drug activity when less than all of the samples register drug residue levels above the relevant “casual contact” level. This case also represents the first time that ion scan test comparisons have been challenged as a method for determining whether there is a nexus between seized money and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  2. Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. Commonwealth v. $6,425.00 Seized from EsquilinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Commonwealth v. MarshallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Commonwealth v. FontanezSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

3 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