This case is a good review of when a mere encounter turns into an investigative detention and the whether the consent to search is truly voluntary. 

Click here  to read more on the case.

     The police applied for a warrant from the district justice, after reviewing the probable cause affidavit and swearing his oath, the district justice issued the warrant by filling out the form completely, including affixing his jurat, but he neglected to sign the warrant. The officers executed what they believed to be a valid warrant and the defendant was arrested and charged with various drug offenses. The sole question on appeal was is a warrant that is valid in every respect except for the signature of the district justice valid. The Superior Court concluded that if the warrant is unsigned it is not valid.

  Click here  to read more on the case.

COMMONWEALTH v RICHARD BUFFINGTON (J.A45012/01 2001 PA SUPER 309)
Superior Court 1479 WDA 2000, decided November 5, 2001

     Defendant was charged with Rape of an Unconscious Person. Involuntary Sexual Intercourse by Forcible Compulsion and/or of an Unconscious Person and Sexual Assault. He was acquitted on the charges of Rape and Involuntary Sexual Intercourse and the jury was hung on the Sexual Assault charge. The Trial Court granted a Judgment of Acquittal on the lesser included Sexual Assault charge. The Superior Court reversed and concluded that the charge of Sexual Assault is not an offense necessarily included in either Rape or IDSI that would result in dismissal pursuant to Rule 1120.

The prosecution has introduced what is known as victim impact evidence. Victim Impact evidence is not evidence of a statutory aggravating circumstances and it cannot be a reason by itself to impose the death penalty. The introduction of victim impact evidence does not in any way relieve the Commonwealth of its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one aggravating circumstance. You may consider this victim impact evidence in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty only if you first find that the existence of one or more aggravating circumstances has been proven beyond a doubt independent from the victim impact evidence, and of one or more jurors has found that one or more mitigating circumstances has been established by a preponderance of the evidence. Victim Impact evidence is simply another method of informing you about the nature and circumstances of the crime in question. You may consider this evidence in determining an appropriate punishment. However, the law does not deem the life of one victim, like the defendant, is a unique individual. Your consideration must be limited to a rational inquiry into the sentence you impose must be in accordance with the law as I instruct you and not based on sympathy, prejudice, emotion or public opinion and not based solely on victim impact.

    Defendant was arrested and charged with DUI he was subsequently placed on ARD. At the ARD hearing on January 4th he was told to turn in his license and the date of suspension was to start that day. Later he received a letter from PennDOT stating that the license suspension would be effective on February 23, he was stopped on February 20 and charged with driving with a suspended license. The court upheld this charge stating that the confusion of the letter should have prompted the defendant to inquire about his driving privileges and this case constitutes a collection of facts and circumstances that the defendant knew the date of his actual license suspension.

JODY R. KINNEY J.S12018.01 2001 PA SUPER 173
Superior Court 1135 MDA 2000 decided June 12, 2001

    Defendant was arrested for DUI, he had a previous DUI in Pennsylvania for which he was placed on ARD and a DUI in New York. At the time of sentencing the Commonwealth graded the offense as a misdemeanor of the first degree and he was sentenced to one to four years imprisonment. The Superior Court reversed and concluded that under 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 3731 (e)(1) for purposes of grading an offense, convictions of an equivalent offense on other jurisdictions cannot be used, and the correct grading in the case would have been a misdemeanor in the second degree.

COMMONWEALTH v JAVAN MCBURROWS (J.E05004/00 2001 PA SUPER 164
Superior Court 2207 EDA 1999 decided May 31, 2001

    Special privelege as set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5914 does not extend to one spouse's observance of the act of another spouse.

KYLLO v U.S. 2001 WL 636207 U.S., 2001
United States Supreme Court decided June 11, 2001

    When the Government uses a device that is not in general public use (in this case a thermal imaging scanner) to explore details of a home that could not have been detected without a physical intrusion it is considered a "search" and therefore presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

    After responding to a car accident, the police placed the driver who he suspected was driving under the influence inside his patrol car. Before reading the defendant his Miranda rightsthe officer asked incriminating questions. The Superior Court found that this was a "custodial interrogation" and suppressed all statements made to the police officer.

    Section 2901 (a) (4) of the kidnapping statute as a matter of law was not intended to address a situation where a non-custodial parent removes her children from the custody of a social service agency in violation of a placement order.