Commonwealth v. Matos
PA Supreme Court Decision
Commonwealth v. Matos, 672 A.2d 769 (1996), is a Pennsylvania State Supreme Court case which further developed Pennsylvania Constitutional Law as affording greater privacy protections than those guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, where police possess neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion, contraband discarded by a person fleeing a police officer are the fruits of an illegal seizure. The case departs from the ruling of California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991), which held that fleeing suspects cannot be considered seized for purposes of the U.S. Constitution. It is a part of a family of state case law concerning the phenomenon of "new judicial federalism." Pennsylvania criminal defense attorneys may cite the case as part of a motion to suppress physical evidence where the defendant discards drugs, weapons, or other contraband while fleeing police.
Facts of the case
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court consolidated three cases for its ruling.
Matos v. Commonwealth
Police responded to a radio call that unknown persons were selling narcotics. When police arrived on scene, three males including appellant Matos, fled as the officers approached.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Commonwealth v. Matos” is pA Supreme Court Decision. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Commonwealth, Matos and Supreme, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “pA Supreme Court Decision” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 2, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5153911. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1996 and 1991.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Commonwealth v. Matos”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Commonwealth v. Matos primary sources, Commonwealth v. Matos archive and Commonwealth research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Commonwealth v. Matos”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Commonwealth v. Matos” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.