Com. v. Bolton

15 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Martinez-Lopez

    1540 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 21, 2022)

    Commonwealth's Br. at 13 (citing Commonwealth v. Bolton, 831 A.2d 734, 737 (Pa.Super. 2003)). The Commonwealth stresses that although Villavicencio's insurance had been reinstated before the stop, she admitted that she did not notify PennDOT when her insurance was reinstated, see 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1786(e)(1), such that "the information contained in the PennDOT database complied with the law.

  2. Commonwealth v. Hadlock

    325 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 27, 2023)

    Hadlock does not cite to any legal authority to support her argument. Moreover, in Commonwealth v. Bolton, 831 A.2d 734 (Pa. Super. 2003), this Court addressed the identical issue and rejected it. Id. at 737.

  3. Commonwealth v. Steele

    297 A.3d 744 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023)

    [s]tate case law recognizes three categories of interaction between police officers and citizens, which include: (1) a mere encounter, or request for information, which need not be supported by any level of suspicion, but which carries no official compulsion to stop or to respond; (2) an investigative detention, which must be supported by reasonable suspicion as it subjects a suspect to a stop and a period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of an arrest; and (3) arrest or custodial detention, which must be supported by probable cause. Commonwealth v. Bolton , 831 A.2d 734, 735 (Pa. Super. 2003).

  4. Commonwealth v. Heidelberg

    2021 Pa. Super. 229 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that an appellant must "preserve a challenge to the application of the automobile exception" pursuant to Alexander "at 'all stages of adjudication up to and including the direct appeal'" for Alexander to have retroactive effect

    Commonwealth v. Cotton, 740 A.2d 258, 264-65 (Pa. Super. 1999) [(emphasis added) (holding arresting officer's reliance on hearsay information gathered from NCIC report, broadcasted over police radio by dispatch, that appellant was wanted pursuant to two bench warrants was sufficient for probable cause to arrest)] (citing Commonwealth v. Feflie, 581 A.2d 636, 642 (Pa. Super. 1990)); see also Commonwealth v. Bolton, 831 A.2d 734, 736 (Pa. Super. 2003) ("This Court has consistently found that a report from the [ N.C. I.C.] is sufficient to form reasonable and articulable grounds, i.e., probable cause, that a crime is being committed or has been committed.") Thus, Trooper Murarik's stop and subsequent arrest of appellant on April 1, 2018, was lawful.

  5. Commonwealth v. Bumbarger

    2020 Pa. Super. 65 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020)   Cited 34 times

    We have previously held that the information contained in a[n] N.C.I.C. report is so inherently reliable that such information is, in and of itself, sufficient to form the basis of a finding of probable cause for a police officer who receives such information from an N.C.I.C. report to make an on the spot arrest. Commonwealth v. Cotton , 740 A.2d 258, 264-265 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citing Commonwealth v. Feflie , 398 Pa.Super. 622, 581 A.2d 636, 642 (1990) ); see also Commonwealth v. Bolton , 831 A.2d 734, 736 (Pa. Super. 2003) ("This Court has consistently found that a report from the [N.C.I.C.] is sufficient to form reasonable and articulable grounds, i.e. , probable cause, that a crime is being committed or has been committed.") Thus, Trooper Murarik's stop and subsequent arrest of Appellant on April 1, 2018, was lawful. Appellant is entitled to no relief on his first claim.

  6. Commonwealth v. Batch

    No. 1124 WDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 25, 2020)

    Commonwealth v. Burgos, 64 A.3d 641, 650 n.7 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 77 A.3d 635 (Pa. 2013), citing United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 281 (1983). In Commonwealth v. Bolton, 831 A.2d 734 (Pa.Super. 2003), a panel of this court addressed whether a police officer who is patrolling the roadway is required to have any level of suspicion before running a vehicle registration through a mobile database. The Bolton court expressly rejected the claim that the "charging officer must have some level of suspicion in order to run a license plate on the road through the NCIC[] computer," concluding that "we fail to see the need for some level of suspicion to check a license plate which is clearly in plain view."

  7. Commonwealth v. Stevens

    No. J-A22027-19 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 20, 2019)

    N.T., 2/15/2019, at 53. In Commonwealth v. Bolton, 831 A.2d 734 (Pa. Super. 2003), this Court addressed whether an officer, while patrolling highways and roads, is required to have any level of suspicion before running a vehicle registration through a mobile database. The Bolton Court noted that

  8. Commonwealth v. Smith

    2017 Pa. Super. 318 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Smith where he met the description of a suspect obtained from a surveillance video, and was in close proximity to location of drug transaction in an area known for a high volume of drug activity

    On appeal, we reversed, noting that officers are routinely permitted to seize suspects based on facts they did not personally observe, such as information in National Crime Information Center computer checks and "police radio broadcasts when directed to perform the seizure by an officer in possession of facts sufficient to justify the interdiction." Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Bolton , 831 A.2d 734 (Pa.Super. 2003) ; Commonwealth v. Sanchez , 416 Pa.Super. 160, 610 A.2d 1020 (1992) ). Here, Trooper Holmes provided Trooper Havens with at least one surveillance photo of a person whom Trooper Holmes saw engaging in hand-to-hand narcotics sales.

  9. Commonwealth v. Diliberto

    No. J-S91045-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 27, 2016)

    We note that Appellant has carried forth in his appellate brief his practice of presenting vague and irrelevant assertions suggesting political/social reform. For instance, Appellant admits that, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Bolton, 831 A.2d 734 (Pa.Super. 2003, Trooper Dyakov was not required to have any level of suspicion before checking Appellant's vehicle's registration plate since such was in plain view; however, Appellant suggests that Bolton's holding has increased the expansion of Pennsylvania into a "Surveillance State." Appellant's Brief at 13-14.

  10. Commonwealth v. Liriano

    No. 959 MDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 29, 2016)

    Instantly, the initial traffic stop was proper. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b) ("Whenever a police officer . . . has reasonable suspicion that a violation of this title is occurring or has occurred, he may stop a vehicle, upon request or signal, for the purpose of checking the vehicle's registration, proof of financial responsibility, vehicle identification number or engine number or the driver's license."); see also 75 Pa.C.S. § 1786(a) ("Every motor vehicle of the type required to be registered under this title which is operated or currently registered shall be covered by financial responsibility"); Commonwealth v. Bolton, 831 A.2d 734, 736-37 (Pa. Super. 2003). Further, under the totality of the circumstances, Officer Voorhies possessed specific facts to conduct a further investigation given the presence of an open beer bottle, as well as the rubber band, in plain view.