Court Opinion

ID: 9761444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:43:06.653359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:23.778798
License: Public Domain

*559EAGEN, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I'join in the opinion of the court but am constrained to point out that today’s decision is confined to determining whether or not this pre — Commonwealth v. Williams, 483 Pa. 293, 396 A.2d 1177 (1978), arrest was legal or illegal, and does not determine whether suppression of evidence is or is not warranted in the same context. Suppression has as its primary purpose deterrence of illegal conduct and conduct occurring prior to Commonwealth v. Williams, supra, which is illegal solely because of new requirements announced in that case, may not justify suppression because it may not serve the purpose of deterrence. Police cannot be expected to act in accordance with unknown requirements.
I am also constrained to point out that any expectation of privacy discussion must on the facts presented be considered applicable only in the context of a warrantless search.