In the Interest of L.J. Appeal of L.J.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a reviewing court deciding a challenge to a pretrial suppression ruling is confined to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and may consider trial evidence only where it was previously unavailable when the suppression record closed, as reflected in Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(J) and Pa.R.J.C.P. 350(D). It concluded that the Chacko footnote endorsing consideration of 'all of the testimony' was non-binding dicta — expressly not crucial to Chacko's outcome and never litigated — and that neither DeMichel, Gordon, nor Carroll establishes a contrary all-testimony rule. Classifying its ruling as a new rule of law because it modifies and limits the footnote on which courts and litigants had relied for nearly thirty years, the Court gave it prospective application, extending it to the parties and to all litigation commenced thereafter, and vacated the disposition order with a remand for a new suppression hearing at which both officers may testify and the minor may fully contest probable cause and consent. Justice Eakin concurred in part and dissented in part, and Justice McCaffery, joined by Justice Stevens, dissented, each disputing the majority's restriction of the scope of review.