Commonwealth v. Ickes

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 2, 2004

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2004-03-02

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 2010

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Where a statute provides that it is unlawful for any person to refuse to produce identification upon, request of a game officer in performance of any duty required by the Game Code, is the statute unlawful on its face in violation of the ■ Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the statute does not require that the game officer have reasonable suspicion? Do the circumstances prevailing in the setting of game and wildlife regulation warrant a lower constitutional threshold to support investigatory activity on the part of game officers, and, in particular, the activity authorized by 34 Pa.C.S. § 904, than would otherwise pertain to more general police investigative activity? 3”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Commonwealth v. Ickes

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-03-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2AND NOW, this 2nd day of March, 2004, the Petition for Alowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, LIMITED to the following issues:

Where a statute provides that it is unlawful for any person to refuse to produce identification upon request of a game officer in performance of any duty required by the Game Code, is the statute unlawful on its face in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the statute does not require that the game officer have reasonable suspicion?

¶3Do the circumstances prevailing in the setting of game and wildlife regulation warrant a lower constitutional threshold to support investigatory activity on the part of game officers, and, in particular, the activity authorized by 34 Pa.C.S. § 904, than would otherwise pertain to more general police investigative activity?