Commonwealth v. Mack

Decided December 20, 2000

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2000-12-20

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc. (2003), Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2012)

30 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[d]id the Superior Court err in affirming the trial court's denial of [Appellant]'s motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the search of her luggage, based on the court's determination that [Appellant] validly consented to the search of her luggage when, after confining her in the airport security office, the police told her that she could consent to an immediate search or they would get a warrant?”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Commonwealth v. MacK

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2000-12-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM:

¶2AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 2000, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, limited to the following issue:

¶3Did the Superior Court err in affirming the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the search of her luggage, based on the court’s determination that Petitioner validly consented to the search of her luggage when, after confining her in the airport security office, the police told her that she could consent to an immediate search or they would get a warrant?