Skip to main content

Com. v. Davis, M.

Citations

  • 287 A.3d 467
  • 2022 Pa. Super. 216

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding that a firearm under the driver’s seat fell within public view doctrine, where the officer saw the firearm while standing outside of defendant’s vehicle, defendant was parked illegally and did not have a license to carry the firearm
  • rejecting the appellant’s claim that “Alexander requires the Commonwealth to prove exigent circumstances where the officers have lawfully seized an object under the plain view doctrine”
  • applying McMahon and Smith in rejecting a claim that “Alexander requires the Commonwealth to prove exigent circumstances where the officers have lawfully seized an object under the plain view doctrine”
  • during a vehicle stop, the officer could ask defendant whether he was licensed to carry a firearm after the officer observed a handgun in plain view while securing the illegally-parked vehicle
  • indicating the incriminating nature of a firearm is immediately apparent where police observe a firearm in the - 17 - J-S18035-23 driver’s seat area and a record check shows that the driver does not have a license to carry a firearm

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lazarus, J.

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Com. v. Davis, M.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.