Opinion
Argued: December 6, 2000.
Decided: May 22, 2001.
Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered 05/13/99 at 1086HBG97 affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, entered 09/18/97 at 917 C.D. 1993, No. 41 M.D. Appeal Dkt. 2000.
Prior report: 1999 PA Super 112, 732 A.2d 1263.
Barbara A. Zemlock, James John Kutz, Harrisburg, for appellant, Timothy McEnany.
Edward Michael Marisico, francis T. chardo, Harrisburg, for appellee, Com. of Pa.
Before FLAHERTY, CJ. and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and Saylor, J.J.
ORDER
Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently granted.
Justice SAYLOR did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Justice ZAPPALA files a dissenting statement.
I dissent and would address the merits of the issue we granted allowance of appeal to review. With the use of portable electronic devices capable of storing information becoming increasingly common, the proper application of principles of search and seizure law to such devices and their components is an issue of substantial importance. Having already deferred review of the order denying suppression once in this case, I believe the Court errs in not reaching the merits again. To my mind it is the dismissal of the appeal that is improvident, not its grant.