In a case in which a suspect who consented to a vehicle search was then made to wait 40 minutes until a K-9 Unit arrived to conduct a sniff search, a deeply split Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the scope of a motorist’s consent is governed by “what a reasonable person would have understood by the exchange that occurred between the officer and the suspect.”

In Commonwealth v. Valdivia, the justices ruled 4-3 to reverse a unanimous Superior Court decision upholding a Centre County trial judge’s denial of defendant Randy Valdivia’s motion to suppress all evidence seized from his vehicle during the traffic stop.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]