Where police installed a GPS device on appellees' vehicle, consistent with the Wiretap Act and authorized by court order, to assist their drug investigation, the trial court erred in reaching the merits of appellees' motions to suppress because appellees failed to demonstrate a Jones possessory interest or a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle. Reversed and remanded.
March 05, 2013 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Motion to Suppress • Police-Installed GPS Device • Wiretap Act • Fourth Amendment • Trespass Doctrine • Expectation of Privacy & Possessory Interest
Commonwealth v. Arthur, PICS Case No. 13-0407 (Pa. Super. Feb. 20, 2013) Platt, J. (19 pages).
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
The City of White Plains is accepting applications for two City Court Judge positions. The City Court Judge position requires an attorney wh...
Named in the 2025 edition of U.S. News - Best Lawyers "Best Law Firms" for the 15th consecutive year in both Medical Malpractice Law and Per...
Duane Morris LLP (a 900 lawyer firm with 20 plus offices across the country, and in London and Singapore) seeks an experienced commercial fi...
