Court Opinion

ID: 9636307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:23:38.018801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:25.873227
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I agree that appellant is entitled to a new trial on the ground that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the testimony of the attorneys of wit*605nesses for the Commonwealth regarding their clients’ waivers of the privilege against self incrimination. However, in rejecting appellant’s suppression claim, the majority unnecessarily holds that the challenged evidence was lawfully seized as having been in plain view. Appellant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the home where he was arrested, and thus the search in no respect violated, or could have violated, appellant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. See Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981); Commonwealth v. Stanley, 498 Pa. 326, 339, 446 A.2d 583, 589 (1982) (Roberts, J., joined by Flaherty, J., concurring).
NIX, J., joins in this concurring opinion.