Pennsylvania v. Allen (majority)
Annotate this CaseEight years after the charges against him were dismissed, appellee Todd Allen petitioned to have the property seized from the vehicle he was driving at the time of his arrest returned to him. The trial court concluded appellee's claim was waived because it had not been raised before the trial court that had jurisdiction over his criminal case. The Commonwealth Court applied a six-year statute of limitations, declining to follow the authority relied upon by the trial court ("Pennsylvania v. Setzer, 392 A.2d 772 (Pa.Super 1978)), and found appellee's motion was therefore untimely. The Commonwealth appealed the Commonwealth Court's judgment, and the Supreme Court was persuaded that the Commonwealth Court erred by applying the statute of limitations analysis. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court was correct in its analysis: because appellee had a prior opportunity to move for the return of the property in the pendency of criminal charges against him, failing to do so waived the issue.
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.