PA: The Rule of Law here counsels against suppression for a jurisdictional violation

A stop outside the officer’s jurisdiction in violation of statute should not lead to suppression of evidence. The rule of law counsels against suppression. The jurisdictional statutes are for accountabiliy. Commonwealth v. Eakin, 2024 PA Super 222, 2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 420 (Sep. 25, 2024):

Suppression may be deemed an appropriate remedy “depending upon all of the circumstances of the case including the intrusiveness of the police conduct, the extent of deviation from the letter and spirit of the Act, and the prejudice to the accused.” Commonwealth v. O’Shea, 523 Pa. 384, 567 A.2d 1023, 1030 (Pa. 1989) (citations omitted). Our Supreme Court approved of this “case-by-case approach[,]” first set forth in a Superior Court case, “to the determination of the appropriateness of exclusion of evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the [MPJA].” Id. Such an approach permits “this Commonwealth’s courts to tailor a remedy in situations where police intentionally have overstepped their boundaries while still affording our courts the flexibility to deny suppression when police have acted to uphold the rule of law in good faith but are in technical violation of the MPJA.” Commonwealth v. Hobel, 2022 PA Super 86, 275 A.3d 1049, 1058 (Pa.Super. 2022) (cleaned up).

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.