Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Randy Jesus VALDIVIA, Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2017-02-01
Citations: 165 A.3d 869
Docket Number: No. 637 MAL 2016
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Randy Jesus VALDIVIA, Petitioner
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 165
Pages: 869–869

Head Matter:
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Randy Jesus VALDIVIA, Petitioner
No. 637 MAL 2016
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
02/01/2017

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:
Whether, in a case of first impression, the Superior Court erred in holding that a reasonable person would have understood that their consent to a roadside search of their vehicle would encompass a canine sniff of all of the packages contained inside the vehicle, and that said consent was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary where the police officers withheld pertinent information about the forthcoming search from Petitioner, including that the canine search would not start any sooner than an hour from when Petitioner's consent was given?