rejecting the federal good faith exception to the exclusionary rule as it would emasculate essential rights guaranteed by the Pennsylvania Constitution
How later courts described this case
- rejecting the federal good faith exception to the exclusionary rule as it would emasculate essential rights guaranteed by the Pennsylvania Constitution
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
J-S47022-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
DAVID MICHAEL BROWN, :
:
Appellant : No. 209 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 30, 2013
in the Court of Common Pleas of York County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-67-CR-0007803-2011
BEFORE: ALLEN, OTT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JULY 30, 2015
I agree that Brown’s suppression motion was denied properly because
the stop was authorized by 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a)(5). I write separately to
distance myself from the Majority’s discussion of unintentional violations of
the statute avoiding application of the exclusionary rule. Majority
Memorandum at 17. As our Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, the
Pennsylvania Constitution allows for no good-faith exception to the
exclusionary rule. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 86 A.3d 182, 184 (Pa.
2014); see also Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887, 899 (Pa.
1991) (rejecting the federal good faith exception to the exclusionary rule as
it would emasculate essential rights guaranteed by the Pennsylvania
Constitution).
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.