From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Santiago

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT
Jan 22, 2018
179 A.3d 455 (Pa. 2018)

Opinion

No. 318 EAL 2017

01-22-2018

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Angel SANTIAGO, Petitioner


ORDER.

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED to the following issue, as stated by Petitioner:

Is not the Superior Court's published opinion applying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to in-court identification testimony inconsistent with controlling Fourth Amendment United States Supreme Court precedent and Article I, § 8, and does not its reliance on overly broad language in Commonwealth v. Garvin, 448 Pa. 258, 293 A.2d 33 (1972), necessitate this Court's guidance and explicit rejection of Garvin and its progeny?

The Petition is otherwise DENIED.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Santiago

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT
Jan 22, 2018
179 A.3d 455 (Pa. 2018)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Santiago

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent v. ANGEL SANTIAGO, Petitioner

Court:SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

Date published: Jan 22, 2018

Citations

179 A.3d 455 (Pa. 2018)

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Santiago

As the parties agree, and we accept, that the Commonwealth's search of Appellant's cell phone was…

Commonwealth v. Santiago

Specifically, we inquire whether the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine warrants suppression of in-court…