Summary
This dissenting statement by Justice Wecht criticizes the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's dismissal as improvidently granted of an appeal concerning the seizure and search of Elise Coles's backpack after she fled from police. It argues that the Court should have decided whether individualized reasonable suspicion existed under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution when police observed marijuana use near a group and pursued Coles.
Questions Presented
- Whether, consistent with the individualized-suspicion requirement of Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, police may detain a person who runs from police when the only additional circumstance is the person's proximity to another person smoking marijuana.
- Whether the police pursuit of Coles was lawful and whether any abandonment of the backpack was coerced by unlawful police conduct.
- Whether the firearm found in Coles's backpack was subject to suppression under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fourth Amendment.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (11)
- Commonwealth v. Coles, 332 A.3d 1185 (Pa. 2025)(case identification)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)(followed)
- Commonwealth v. Coles, 317 A.3d 659, 664 (Pa. Super. 2024)(described)
- Commonwealth v. Gordon, 683 A.2d 253, 256 (Pa. 1996)(followed)
- Commonwealth v. Matos, 672 A.2d 769, 771, 776 (Pa. 1996)(followed)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 735 A.2d 673, 675 (Pa. 1999)(followed)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 326-27 (2009)(applied)
- In re D.M., 781 A.2d 1161, 1163 (Pa. 2001)(followed)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991)(distinguished_from)
- Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 53 (1979)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…