Court Opinion

ID: 9629803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:49:48.125077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:24.564340
License: Public Domain

Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
Subject to the understanding that the majority addresses itself only to a subset of the circumstances that can reasonably *345be deemed “exigent” for purposes of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement as it pertains in Pennsylvania, I join the majority opinion. I obviously share Mr. Justice Castille’s view that the exception applies more broadly, as reflected in my decision to join the lead opinion in Commonwealth v. McCree, 592 Pa. 238, 924 A.2d 621 (2007) (plurality). See also Commonwealth v. Perry, 568 Pa. 499, 536-38, 798 A.2d 697, 719-20 (2002) (Saylor, J., concurring). I believe that the solution advanced in McCree, which favors the adoption of the federal automobile exception subject to a warrant-when-practicable requirement, represents an appropriate stance and an essential resolution of the longstanding disharmony regarding fundamental principles governing police conduct in this line of cases.
Finally, I see no further need to consider whether the search in this case falls within the broader scope of the exigent circumstances exception, since I agree with the majority that the affidavit of probable cause contains sufficient independent information to support the issuance of the search warrant.
Justice EAKIN joins this concurring opinion.