Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 11/5/1993

Commonwealth v. Peterson

Citations

636 A.2d 615
535 Pa. 492
1993 Pa. LEXIS 240

How courts have described this case

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

holding that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy while within an abandoned storefront
holding that appellant was not entitled to suppression of evidence seized from premises where “[h]e has made no averment of possessory interest, legitimate presence, or indeed any factor from which a reasonable and justifiable expectation of privacy could be deduced”
having first had his standing acknowledged, a criminal defendant is only then permitted to assert the merits of his suppression motion
finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in living area that defendant did not establish was his home
addressing the predicate issue of standing to assert a constitutional claim of unreasonable search and seizure in the first place, even though the appellant’s argument focused on whether exigent circumstances existed to make the warrantless entry
appellant is not entitled to suppression of items seized in search of abandoned storefront because he did not have an expectation of privacy which society recognizes as legitimate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nix, Flaherty, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy, Montemuro

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

44 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this 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.