Commonwealth v. Fulton, I.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 23, 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2017-01-23

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 2018

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“a. The Superior Court's opinion is contrary to Riley/Wurie [,] which held that the warrantless search of a flip top cell phone is prohibited without any expectation for minimal intrusion. b. The Superior Court's opinion is contrary to this Court's opinion[s] in Story and [ Commonwealth v. LaRosa , 533 Pa. 479 , 626 A.2d 103 (1993),] which held that a constitutional error cannot be harmless unless there is independent evidence that is untainted, uncontradicted and overwhelming.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Commonwealth v. Fulton, I., Aplt.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2017-01-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 ORDER

PER CURIAM

¶2 AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the remaining issue. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

a. The Superior Court’s opinion is contrary to Riley/Wurie which held that the warrantless search of a flip top cell phone is prohibited without any expectation for minimal intrusion.

b. The Superior Court’s opinion is contrary to this Court’s opinion in Story and La Rosa which held that a constitutional error cannot be harmless unless there is independent evidence that is untainted, uncontradicted and overwhelming..

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.