# Commonwealth v. Kemp

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · November 26, 2008 · 2008 Pa. Super. 274

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695084

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Kennedy Decatrick KEMP, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 26, 2008
- **Citations:** 2008 Pa. Super. 274; 961 A.2d 1247; 2008 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3969; 2008 WL 5046786
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Melvin
- **Judges:** Elliott, Musmanno, Melvin, Lally-Green, Todd, Bowes, Gantman, McCaffery, Daniels
- **Cited by:** 117 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695084

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that encounter was an investigatory detention where the appellant was not told that he was free to leave after his documents were returned, and the trooper inquired about his travels
- holding totality of factors supported finding that consent to search was voluntary and not the product of coercion, even if officer failed to inform subject that he could refuse consent
- stating that “when a person is standing outside rather than inside his vehicle, he is less likely to believe that he can actually leave the area by entering the car and driving away.”
- noting that “Trooper DeLuca had observed major indicia of drug- related activity during the course of the traffic stop. It is unlikely that after returning the documents and telling Appellant to have a nice day, Trooper DeLuca would have permitted Appellant to enter the car an…

## Opinion text

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY
ORIE MELVIN, J.:
¶ 1 While I agree with the majority’s affirmance of the trial court’s refusal to suppress the evidence, I write separately to clarify that I do so on the basis that I believe the latter portion of the interaction between Appellant and Trooper DeLuca was a mere encounter and not an investigative detention. In all other respects, I agree with the majority’s cogent analysis.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695084. Public record. Not legal advice.