Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Wendy CASTRO, Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2016-11-22
Citations: 639 Pa. 595
Docket Number: No. 310 EAL 2016
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Wendy CASTRO, Petitioner
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 639
Pages: 595–595

Head Matter:
161 A.3d 798
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Wendy CASTRO, Petitioner
No. 310 EAL 2016
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
November 22, 2016

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 22nd day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:
(1) In view of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), and Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981), did the Superior Court err in concluding that an arrest warrant for Earnest Moreno authorized entry into the residence of Angel Romero and Wendy Castro for the purpose of executing the arrest warrant?
(2) Did the Superior Court apply an erroneous standard of review regarding the suppression court's finding of fact that the authorities did not have express permission to enter the residence of Angel Romero and Wendy Castro?