Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Get alerted any time new stories match your search criteria. Create an alert to follow a developing story, keep current on a competitor, or monitor industry news.
Thank You!
Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
How To Use Search Constraints
Categorical
judge:"Steven Andrews"
court:Florida
topic:"Civil Appeals"
practicearea:Lobbying
Boolean
"Steven Andrews" AND Litigation
"Steven Andrews" OR "Roger Dalton"
Litigation NOT "Roger Dalton"
"Steven Andrews" AND Litigation NOT Florida
Combinations
(Florida OR Georgia) judge:"Steven Andrews"
((Florida AND Georgia) OR Texas) topic:"Civil Appeals"
Police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendants vehicle where two officers gave credible testimony that they consistently noticed the smell of burnt marijuana coming from defendants vehicle, even though the drug paraphernalia found in defendants car did not suggest recent use. The court denied defendants motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to suppress evidence.
Publication Date: 2017-11-14 Practice Area:Discovery | Judges Industry: Court:Superior Court Judge:Judge Solano Attorneys:For plaintiff: for defendant: Case Number: 17-1023
The trial court did not err in denying a retired judges motion to quash a subpoena seeking his testimony and records regarding alleged ex parte communications with prosecuting attorneys during defendants trial since the judicial deliberative process privilege did not extend to alleged ex parte communications which may have tainted defendants trial. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
While the arresting officer used statements from a third party that turned out to be false in his affidavit of probable cause to arrest defendant, none of the challenged statements were material to the issuing authoritys decision on whether probable cause existed to arrest defendant. The appellate court denied defendants pretrial motion to suppress evidence.
The court declined to adopt a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applicable to blood draw evidence after the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, as such an exception would frustrate the privacy guarantees of the Article 1, §8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court affirmed an order granting defendants motion to suppress blood draw evidence.
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the data on the cell phone he abandoned in his haste to avoid state troopers following several motor violations, and the troopers were justified in the warrantless search of the specific phone given that they were attempting to pursue a fleeing suspect. The court denied defendants motion to suppress evidence.
Board erred in denying license reinstatement to petitioner who had successfully completed drug court and had his criminal charges dismissed because statements petitioner made to drug court were not admissions of guilt and he was not convicted since after drug court dismissed the charges, petitioners criminal record no longer existed and could not be used to deny reinstatement of his license. Reversed.
Commonwealth court panel erred in reversing the parole boards denial of credit to appellee on his state sentence for time he spent on detainer because board properly denied credit under Gaito v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 412 A.2d 568. Reversed.
District Court erred in denying appellant state officials motion for judgment on the pleadings in former employees malicious prosecution action brought after he was charged with concealing or destroying evidence that was the subject of a grand jury subpoena because even though the criminal procedure ended in his favor, there was probable cause to prosecute him based on a phone call made from his office desk. Reversed.
1 minute read