 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Roose4/22/1998
kstone, Commentaries, supra, Book I, The Rights of Persons, at 345. We are impressed with what appears to be a significant difference between the duties of sheriffs and constables.
Most relevant for our inquiry is the statutory basis for the powers of constables in England. Unlike sheriffs, whose powers grew in the common law tradition to include broad law enforcement authority, the powers of constables were not developed as fully in such a strong common law tradition, but were rather set forth in a series of statutes. Thus it is not appropriate to follow the analysis of Leet, supra, wherein we reasoned that sheriffs, due to their common law powers, had the authority to enforce the motor vehicle laws unless contravened by statute; conversely, as to constables, it seems proper to conclude that unless a statute empowers them to enforce the vehicle laws, then they do not possess the legal authority to do so.
We hold, therefore, that due to the absence of statutory authority for constables to enforce the motor vehicle laws, they do not possess such authority, as such authority cannot be derived from the common law as was the case for sheriffs in Leet, supra.
That being the case, the constables' stop of appellee's vehicle was an illegal seizure, and the fruits of the stop should have been suppressed. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Superior Court.
Affirmed.
Justice Saylor did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Justice Cappy concurs in the result.
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|