# Commonwealth v. One 1955 Buick Sedan

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · June 13, 1962 · 198 Pa. Super. 133

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752942

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. One 1955 Buick Sedan (Scott, Appellant)
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 13, 1962
- **Citations:** 198 Pa. Super. 133; 182 A.2d 280; 1962 Pa. Super. LEXIS 663
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Watkins
- **Judges:** Rhodes, Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, Flood
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9752942

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Watkins, J.:
I would reverse the Decree of Forfeiture of the Court below for the reason that the evidence obtained was without warrant in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and so constituted illegal search and seizure, and the defendant’s motion to suppress should have been sustained. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 , 81 S. Ct. 1684 , 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (June 1961).
The officers were observing the building and the automobile for four days and during the entire time had probable cause to obtain the necessary warrant. This could have been at any time during the four days without interrupting surveillance and to say, as the majority opinion does, that “it would have been unreasonable to expect the officers to go some distance away to obtain a warrant for search and seizure when the moving automobile, within a few minutes, probably would have been out of reach of the officers,” is a tortured interpretation of the facts.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752942. Public record. Not legal advice.