What Happened — and Why We're Fighting
On June 17, 2026, an en banc Superior Court held 8–1 in Commonwealth v. Wiggs, 2026 PA Super 126, that a constable's vehicle is not a "police vehicle" under 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 102 and 4571. We respectfully disagree. The decision treats Pennsylvania's oldest elected law enforcement officers as something less than the police officers the statutes already make them — one more move in a steady, concerted effort to narrow the authority of officers the people themselves put into office.
Section 102 defines a "police officer" as a person whose authority to arrest is conferred by law. That is precisely what sets constables apart. Pennsylvania has other directly-elected officers who enforce the law — sheriffs are elected too — but constables are the only directly-elected officers whose arrest authority is statutory rather than merely common-law. Constables alone are both elected and statutory police. Judge Stabile said as much in dissent, and his reasoning is our north star.
So we are not accepting this quietly. We are pursuing a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and we are asking the General Assembly to amend 75 Pa.C.S. § 4571(b)(1) to say plainly what the law already implies: that a constable's vehicle is a police vehicle. You can help with both.
Read the full case & dissent