Case ID: a3d_174/html/0576-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Molly HLUBIN, Petitioner
    No. 246 WAL 2017
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    November 21, 2017
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of November, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

1. Did the Superior Court erroneously broaden municipal police powers by holding that when municipal police officers leave their primary jurisdiction for the purpose of conducting sobriety checkpoints, it is not necessary to comply with the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 53 Pa.C.S, §§ 2301 et seq., by entering into written agreements and passing an ordinance because such actions are permitted under the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act?
2. Did the Superior Court erroneously eliminate the longstanding requirement that a “crime in progress” investigation must be taking place before police officers can leave their primary jurisdiction and enter into extraterritorial forays for the purpose of conducting an investigation under section 8953(a)(3) of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 8953(a)(3)?
3. Did the Superior Court erroneously eliminate the statutory requirement in section 8953(a)(4) of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a)(4), that before a police officer can enter another jurisdiction to conduct an investigation, the crime being investigated must have taken place in the officer’s primary jurisdiction?