About: Commonwealth v. Matos

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Commonwealth v. Matos Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FCommonwealth_v._Matos&invfp=IFP_OFF&sas=SAME_AS_OFF

Commonwealth v. Matos, 672 A.2d 769 (1996), is a Pennsylvania State Supreme Court case which further developed Pennsylvania Constitutional Law as affording greater privacy protections than those guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, where police possess neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion, contraband discarded by a person fleeing a police officer are the fruits of an illegal seizure. The case departs from the ruling of California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991), which held that fleeing suspects cannot be considered seized for purposes of the U.S. Constitution. It is a part of a family of state case law concerning the phenomenon of "." Pennsylvania criminal defense attorneys may cite the case as part of a motion to suppress physica

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity
rdfs:label	Commonwealth v. Matos (en)
rdfs:comment	Commonwealth v. Matos, 672 A.2d 769 (1996), is a Pennsylvania State Supreme Court case which further developed Pennsylvania Constitutional Law as affording greater privacy protections than those guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, where police possess neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion, contraband discarded by a person fleeing a police officer are the fruits of an illegal seizure. The case departs from the ruling of California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991), which held that fleeing suspects cannot be considered seized for purposes of the U.S. Constitution. It is a part of a family of state case law concerning the phenomenon of "." Pennsylvania criminal defense attorneys may cite the case as part of a motion to suppress physica (en)
name	Commonwealth v. Matos (en)
foaf:depiction
dcterms:subject	Pennsylvania state case law 1996 in United States case law 1996 in Pennsylvania United States Fourth Amendment case law
Wikipage page ID	23291308 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1124444724 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	California v. Hodari D. Ronald D. Castille John P. Flaherty Jr. Pennsylvania United States v. Leon Pennsylvania state case law 1996 in United States case law Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Atlantic Reporter 1996 in Pennsylvania United States Fourth Amendment case law Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Robert N. C. Nix, Jr. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Fruit of a poisonous tree Stephen A. Zappala Ralph J. Cappy U.S. Constitution dbr:New_judicial_federalism
sameAs	Commonwealth v. Matos Commonwealth v. Matos Commonwealth v. Matos
subsequent actions	none (en)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Reflist dbt:Infobox_Court_Case
thumbnail	wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Seal_of_Pennsylvania.svg?width=300
citations	17280.0 (second)
court	Pennsylvania Supreme Court
full name	Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Danny Matos (en)
judges	Nix C.J. and Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille JJ. (en)
has abstract	Commonwealth v. Matos, 672 A.2d 769 (1996), is a Pennsylvania State Supreme Court case which further developed Pennsylvania Constitutional Law as affording greater privacy protections than those guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, where police possess neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion, contraband discarded by a person fleeing a police officer are the fruits of an illegal seizure. The case departs from the ruling of California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991), which held that fleeing suspects cannot be considered seized for purposes of the U.S. Constitution. It is a part of a family of state case law concerning the phenomenon of "." Pennsylvania criminal defense attorneys may cite the case as part of a motion to suppress physical evidence where the defendant discards drugs, weapons, or other contraband while fleeing police. (en)
date decided	1996-02-26 (xsd:date)
opinions	Where police possess neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion, contraband discarded by a person fleeing a police officer are the fruits of an illegal seizure under the greater privacy protections of the Pennsylvania Constitution. (en)
prior actions	17280.0 (second)
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:Commonwealth_v._Matos?oldid=1124444724&ns=0
page length (characters) of wiki page	6601 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf	wikipedia-en:Commonwealth_v._Matos
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of	California v. Hodari D. Fruit of the poisonous tree
is foaf:primaryTopic of	wikipedia-en:Commonwealth_v._Matos

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 56 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software