-
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
*864 tradiction 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.
Document Info
Docket Number: 1788 WDA 2007
Citation Numbers: 986 A.2d 860
Judges: Hudock, Klein, McEWEN
Filed Date: 12/1/2009
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 8/25/2023