PA: Confrontation clause applied to suppression hearing

Confrontation rights applied to a suppression hearing, so it was error to permit co-conspirator to testify by videoconference from jail. Here, however, it was harmless because it was cumulative. Commonwealth v. Atkinson, 2009 PA Super 239, 987 A.2d 743 (2009) (Note: Not all courts agree.)

Officers investigating passengers on a train developed reasonable suspicion for claimant’s suitcase, and it was reasonable to remove it from the train for a dog sniff under the circumstances. United States v. Funds in the Amount of $ 40,000, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115487 (N.D. Ill. December 10, 2009).*

The search of defendant’s car was justified by the automobile exception and not search incident under Gant. United States v. Goldsmith, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115430 (E.D. Tex. November 12, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.