For the Defense - Volume 2, Issue 4 - 2017 - 39

discovered facts" exception to the PCRA. Even
though changes in science may occur, it takes
time to assess the impact that such changes
may have on a case and obtain the needed
support for the presentation of such a claim.
This case involves the interplay of cases based
on "shifted science" and the 60-day period
set forth in the PCRA for the presentation of
"newly discovered evidence."
Allocatur grant: "(1) Whether the exception
to the timeliness requirement of the PCRA
for after-discovered facts requires the
petitioner to file her PCRA Petition before
verifying unknown, but suspected, facts
through expert analysis.
(2) Whether the Court of Common Pleas'
determination of the deadline to file a PCRA
petition for after-discovered evidence is entitled to deference by the Superior Court."

they did not attempt to perform any search
until the K-9 arrived. When the K-9 arrived,
the packages were removed from the car and
the dog gave an indication that narcotics were
present. At no time did Valdivia revoke his
consent or object to the search. Valdivia subsequently challenged the scope of the consent
that was provided.
Allocatur grant: "Whether, in a case of first
impression, the Superior Court erred in holding
that a reasonable person would have understood that their consent to a roadside search
of their vehicle would encompass a canine sniff
of all of the packages contained inside the
vehicle, and that said consent was knowing,
intelligent, and voluntary where the police
officers withheld pertinent information about
the forthcoming search from Petitioner, including that the canine search would not start any
sooner than an hour from when Petitioner's
consent was given?"

Status: Pending.
Amicus Authors: Marc J. Sonnenfeld and
A. Lauren Carpenter, of Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP

Commw. v. Valdivia: Amicus Filed: May 15, 2017
(Defender Association of Philadelphia and PACDL
Joint Amicus)
Nature of case: Valdivia was pulled over for a
traffic offense. During the stop, officers formed
the belief that Valdivia may be transporting
contraband. The cops asked for consent to
search the car, and Valdivia purportedly gave
consent. Valdivia was then given two options-
he could wait in his car, or wait in the back of
the police car; Valdivia chose to wait in his car.
Forty minutes later, another officer arrived
with a K-9. The officer who sought the initial
consent to search could not recall if he advised
that a K-9 would be involved. Although the
officers were interested in certain packages,

Status: Pending. On argument list for
November 28, 2017.
Amicus Authors: Aaron Marcus and Keir
Bradford-Grey, of the Defender Association of
Philadelphia

About the Author
Barbara A. Zemlock
is Past President of
the Pennsylvania
Association of
Criminal Defense
Lawyers and co-chairperson of PACDL's
Amicus Committee.
monitoring.

Share this article
Vol. 2, Issue 4 | For The Defense

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Volume 2, Issue 4 - 2017