Commonwealth v. Valdivia, R.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 1, 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2017-02-01

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 2018

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Whether, in a case of first impression, the Superior Court erred in holding that a reasonable person would have understood that their consent to a roadside search of their vehicle would encompass a canine sniff of all of the packages contained inside the vehicle, and that said consent was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary where the police officers withheld pertinent information about the forthcoming search from [Valdivia], including that the canine search would not start any sooner than an hour from when [Valdivia]'s consent was given?”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Commonwealth v. Valdivia, R., Aplt.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2017-02-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 ORDER

PER CURIAM

¶2 AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Whether, in a case of first impression, the Superior Court erred in holding that a reasonable person would have understood that their consent to a roadside search of their vehicle would encompass a canine sniff of all of the packages contained inside the vehicle, and that said consent was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary where the police officers withheld pertinent information about the forthcoming search from Petitioner, including that the canine search would not start any sooner than an hour from when Petitioner’s consent was given?