Court Opinion

ID: 9700713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:46:31.250792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:13.978365
License: Public Domain

NIX, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I am constrained to reject the naivete upon which the majority premises its position. Appellant asserts that the police were engaged in a search for inculpatory evidence. *329A realistic assessment of the record confirms that charge. The police had the right to open the wallet and to identify its contents pursuant to a lawful inventory search. However, it was not necessary to record a telephone number appearing on the back cover of the address book to identify it as an article in the possession of the appellant at the time of his initial arrest. Nor can I accept as a coincidence that the telephone number in question proved to be a vital piece of evidence in establishing appellant’s guilt. The instant factual situation does not fall within a lawful “caretaking search of ... lawfully impounded ... [articles] ... which was free of any pretext of investigatory motives----” Commonwealth v. Scott, 489 Pa. 258, 267, 365 A.2d 140, 144 (1976).
I dissent.
ZAPPALA, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.