Court Opinion

ID: 9692002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:36:01.576064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:24:09.016897
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING STATEMENT
BY McEWEN, P.J.E.:
¶ 1 The author of the Majority Opinion has, in his usual fashion, perceptively analyzed the issues presented in this appeal, and while I agree with the decision of the Majority to affirm the decision of the trial court to deny appellant’s motion to suppress, I -write separately to state that my decision to join is based upon the fact that the arresting officer testified, without con*864tradiction or rebuttal, that appellant’s car “would have been towed” and “an inventory search of the vehicle” would have been performed. See: N.T., November 21, 2006. Thus, despite the fact that there was no written policy produced by the Commonwealth to explain the parameters of this towing policy, the learned Judge Anthony Mariani, who presided over the suppression hearing, had, in my view, an ample basis for refusing to suppress the recovery of the subject weapon under the doctrine of inevitable discovery.