Case ID: pa_565/html/0138-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: ZAPPALA, Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

771 A.2d 1260
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Timothy P. McENANY, Appellant.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued Dec. 6, 2000.
    Decided May 22, 2001.
    
      Barbara A. Zemlock, James John Kutz, Harrisburg, for appellant, Timothy McEnany.
    Edward Michael Marsico, Francis T. Chardo, Harrisburg, for appellee, Com. of Pa.
    Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO and NEWMAN, JJ
   ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently granted.

Justice SAYLOR did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Justice ZAPPALA files a dissenting statement.

ZAPPALA, Justice,

dissenting.

I dissent and would address the merits of the issue we granted allowance of appeal to review. With the use of portable electronic devices capable of storing information becoming increasingly common, the proper application of principles of search and seizure law to such devices and their components is an issue of substantial importance. Having already deferred review of the order denying suppression once in this case, I believe the Court errs in not reaching the merits again. To my mind it is the dismissal of the appeal that is improvident, not its grant.