Commonwealth v. Lagenella Jr., F., Aplt (concurring)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-120-2012][M.O. Todd, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. FRANCIS PATRICK LAGENELLA, JR., Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 14 MAP 2012 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court at No. 255 MDA 2010 dated 4/5/11 affirming the judgment of sentence of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, at No. CP-22-CR-540-2009 dated 1-11-10 ARGUED: October 16, 2012 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: December 27, 2013 I agree with the majority s conclusion that an inventory search was not warranted on the particular facts of this case, as well as with its rejection of the bright-line rule, proposed by the Commonwealth, that all vehicle immobilizations justify constitutionally valid inventory searches. To the extent the majority opinion reflects a bright-line rule to the converse (i.e., that no inventory searches conducted in connection with immobilizations may be valid), however, I remain circumspect and reserve my own judgment.

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.