Skip to main content

Com. v. Lutz, A.

Citations

  • 270 A.3d 571
  • 2022 Pa. Super. 24

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding Alexander did not impact Court’s ruling because decision did not “rest upon the analytical underpinnings of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement,” but upon, among other things, application of plain view exception to warrant requirement
  • holding -7- J-S44028-23 that “Alexander did not impact [the trial court’s] ruling because its decision did not ‘rest upon the analytical underpinnings of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, but rather upon an application of the plain view’” exception
  • “The search incident to arrest exception allows arresting officers, in order to prevent the arrestee from obtaining a weapon or destroying evidence, to search both the person arrested and the area within his immediate control.” (emphasis and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Pellegrini, J.

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.