Commonwealth v. Stevenson (Concurring And Dissenting Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-72A/B-1999 MO: J. Nigro] THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellee, : : : v. : : : REUBEN STEVENSON, : : Appellant. : : : : : IN THE INTEREST OF R.A., A Minor : : APPEAL OF: R.A., A Minor : : : : : : : : No. 192 M.D. Appeal Docket 1998 Appeal from the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Superior Court (Cavanaugh, Beck and Brosky, JJ.) dated October 30, 1997, affirming the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (Hazel, J.) dated June 3, 1996. ARGUED: April 28, 1999 No. 191 M.D. Appeal Docket 1998 Appeal from the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Superior Court (Johnson, Stevens and Olszewski, JJ.) dated June 10, 1998, affirming the Adjudication of Delinquency of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County (Turgeon, J.) dated June 14, 1997. ARGUED: April 28, 1999 CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION MADAME JUSTICE NEWMAN DECIDED: January 20, 2000 While I agree with the majority that the evidence seized from R.A. was seized illegally and must be suppressed, I respectfully disagree with the majority s conclusion that the evidence seized from Appellant Stevenson is likewise subject to suppression. In 1993, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) and adopted the plain feel doctrine. Earlier this year this Court applied Dickerson in Commonwealth v. E.M. 735 A.2d 654 (Pa. 1999), reiterating that, in order for the plain feel doctrine to apply, the criminal nature of the object must be immediately apparent to the officer conducting the frisk. In a footnote, the majority elaborated on this requirement stating that: In order to remain within the boundaries delineated by Dickerson, an officer must be able to substantiate what it was about the tactile impression of the object that made it immediately apparent to him that he was feeling contraband. Id., 735 A.2d at 664 n.8. In my opinion, that is precisely what occurred in Appellant Stevenson s case. Accordingly, I agree with Justice Castille that the evidence seized was admissible under the plain feel doctrine. J-72A/B 1999 MO: Nigro - 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
