Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

317 Pa. Super. 235

463 A.2d 1172

Commonwealth v. Millings

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 29, 1983

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1983-07-29

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1986

4 state decisions

Relies on St. Martin Evangelical Lutheran Church v. South Dakota · United States v. Williams · 420 So. 2d 380 - Pesci v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-07-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WIEAND, Judge,

¶1concurring:

¶2I agree that the present state of the law, as ably reviewed in the opinion of Judge Lipez, requires suppression of the fruits of an arrest based on a warrant previously withdrawn by the court even though the arresting officer reasonably and in good faith believed the warrant to be viable at the time he made the arrest. As a member of an intermediate appellate court I must decline the invitation to join the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which has recognized “technical violation” and “good faith mistake” exceptions to the exclusionary rule. See: United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1127, 101 S.Ct. 946, 67 L.Ed.2d 114, citing Ball, Good Faith and the Fourth Amendment: The “Reasonable” Exception to the Exclusionary Rule, 69 J.Crim.L. & Criminology 635 (1978). See also: Pesci v. State, 420 So.2d 380 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1982). I cannot help but observe, however, that such an exception to the exclusionary rule would certainly make it unnecessary to suppress the' contraband seized in the instant case.

/317/pasuper/235 · .json · Public domain