# Commonwealth v. Dugger

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 9, 1985 · 506 Pa. 537

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736143

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Billy G. DUGGER, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 9, 1985
- **Citations:** 506 Pa. 537; 486 A.2d 382; 1985 Pa. LEXIS 281
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nix
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 305 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/9736143

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding Commonwealth's appeal from suppression order is proper when Commonwealth certifies in good faith that suppression order substantially handicaps prosecution
- holding an order suppressing evidence is appealable only when it is apparent from the record that the order terminates or substantially handicaps the prosecution
- noting that “the formal purpose of the Superior Court is to maintain and effectuate the decisional law of this [Supreme] Court as faithfully as possible.”

## Opinion text

NIX, Chief Justice,
concurring.
Admittedly the language of Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56 , 190 A.2d 304 (1963), is not the model of clarity. However, in my judgment it was the intention of the Court in that decision to limit the Commonwealth’s right of appeal from an adverse suppression ruling to those instances where the order of suppression either resulted in the termination of the prosecution’s case because of the lack of all of its evidence or “wherein the Commonwealth is substantially handicapped because it cannot present all its available evidence.” Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, supra, 411 Pa. at 63 , 190 A.2d at 308 .
If any diminution resulting from an adverse order of suppression is to be treated as justification for the Commonwealth’s right to appeal, the Bosurgi court’s use of the term “substantially handicapped” is rendered surplusage. Consequently the requirement of a certification is totally unnecessary since the adverse suppression order itself is a matter of record. If the ruling of the Court today is intended as accepting an interpretation of Bosurgi which would in fact limit the right of appeal of the Commonwealth, providing for a certification which is conclusive and *548 not subject to challenge renders the qualification of the right illusory. The effect of the majority’s opinion today under either situation is to provide an unfettered right of appeal to the Commonwealth whenever it sustains an unfavorable suppression ruling, regardless of the impact of that ruling upon the strength of its case.
From our experience since Bosurgi , I am convinced that an absolute right of appeal will prove to be a more manageable rule and therefore have no objection to the change. Moreover, it is obvious that the approach suggested by the Superior Court would totally frustrate the process and cannot be accepted. My reason for writing is merely to clarify my view that what is being set forth today is not the Bosurgi rule, but rather a new approach.
I also join in the portion of the majority opinion concerning the right.of the prison authorities to search prison visitors and concluding that appellee Dugger voluntarily submitted to the search.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736143. Public record. Not legal advice.