Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Potts

Citations

  • 73 A.3d 1275
  • 2013 Pa. Super. 236
  • 2013 WL 4398971
  • 2013 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2635

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that “officers were not required to ignore the marijuana they saw in [the a]ppellant’s bedroom while conducting [a protective] sweep”
  • concluding that “officers were not required to ignore the marijuana they saw in [the a]ppellant’s bedroom while conducting [a protective] sweep”
  • concluding that “officers were not required to ignore the marijuana they saw in [the a]ppellant’s bedroom while conducting [a protective] sweep”
  • concluding that “officers were not required to ignore the marijuana they saw in [the a]ppellant’s bedroom while conducting [a protective] sweep”
  • finding that totality of the circumstances justified entry to ensure that occupant was not in danger
  • stating that “[i]f, while conducting a [protective sweep], the officer should, . . . discover contraband other than weapons, he clearly cannot be required to ignore the contraband” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Allen, Gantman, Platt

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 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.