Court Opinion

ID: 9757162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:21:30.441696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:35.461267
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION

Mr. Justice SAYLOR.
I join the majority opinion, save for its conclusion that the December 30, 1996, search of Appellant’s vehicle was necessarily within the scope of the consent Appellant had provided several days earlier, see Majority Opinion, at 549. See generally 3 Wayne R. LaFave: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 8.1, at 629 (3d ed.1996) (stating that “[e]xcept in unusual circumstances or when the consent expressly indicates otherwise, it would seem that a consent to search may be said to be given upon the understanding that the search will be conducted forthwith and that only a single search will be made”). I agree, however, that, to the extent that the search was invalid, the admission at trial of evidence obtained during the search constituted harmless error. See Majority Opinion, at 549 n.38.
Mr. Chief Justice ZAPPALA joins this concurring opinion.