Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog
PA Superior Court: Shining Flashlight Into Small Opening of Shoebox Violates Plain View Doctrine
Pennsylvania Superior Court Reverses Conviction Based on Warrantless Shoebox Search
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
In Commonwealth v. Herlth, 2025 PA Super 73, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a drug conviction after concluding that a warrantless search of a shoebox violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The ruling serves as a clear reaffirmation of privacy rights in closed containers within the home—even during police responses to medical emergencies.
The Facts of Herlth
The case arose out of an incident which occurred on August 31, 2020, when Pennsylvania State Police responded to a report of a drug overdose at a residence in Red Lion, Pennsylvania. EMS personnel were already inside administering care to the defendant when a state police trooper entered the house. The trooper was not there to provide medical assistance, but he wanted to ensure the safety of the EMS responders and “see what [the patient] overdosed on to possibly make an investigation further, anything that’s in plain view that we can see.”
While standing in a small living room near the defendant’s feet, the trooper noticed a closed shoebox next to the defendant’s leg. He then shined his flashlight into a manufacturer’s hole in the box and saw what appeared to be “scramble” capsules which were commonly used to package fentanyl and other drugs. Believing that the defendant had overdosed on these capsules, the trooper opened the box and seized a bag containing 117 capsules.
The defendant was arrested and charged with possession with the intent to deliver. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the trooper conducted an illegal warrantless search of his house and the shoebox. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and allowed the introduction of the evidence at trial. The court reasoned that the drugs were in plain view because the trooper was able to find them without actually opening the shoebox even though the trooper could not see them without using his flashlight. The court found the defendant guilty of PWID and sentenced him to seven to fourteen years’ incarceration. He appealed.
The Legal Issue: Was the Search Justified by the Plain View Doctrine?
On appeal, the defendant challenged the warrantless search and seizure, arguing that the use of a flashlight to examine the interior of a closed shoebox exceeded the scope of any permissible exception to the warrant requirement.
The Superior Court agreed. The Court explained the three essential requirements for the plain view doctrine to apply:
The officer must lawfully be in the vantage point from which the object is viewed;
The incriminating nature of the object must be immediately apparent (i.e., there must be probable cause);
The officer must have lawful access to the object.
While the Court acknowledged that the defendant lawfully entered the home under the “community caretaking” doctrine to ensure EMS safety, it held that the Commonwealth failed to satisfy the other two prongs of the test.
Specifically, the shoebox was a closed, opaque container, not an item whose incriminating character was immediately apparent. There was no way for the trooper to observe the contents without manipulating the container by shining a flashlight into a manufacturer’s hole—an investigative act which itself constituted a search.
Reliance on Key Precedent
The Court drew heavily on Commonwealth v. Graham, 721 A.2d 1075 (Pa. 1998), and Commonwealth v. Norris, 446 A.2d 246 (Pa. 1982). In both cases, the Pennsylvania courts held that police may not use the plain view doctrine to justify extending a search into containers or concealed areas unless the object is already visible and the officer has lawful access.
In Graham, for example, the officer shined a flashlight into the defendant’s pocket after a Terry frisk had concluded, ultimately discovering contraband. The Supreme Court found that flashlight use in that context transformed an otherwise valid frisk into an unlawful search. Likewise, in Norris, officers were justified in seizing a knife on a nightstand but were not permitted to search under a mattress for a hidden firearm after the emergency had ended.
Why the Flashlight Made the Search Unlawful
Although courts have upheld flashlight use when illuminating objects that would otherwise be visible during the day, that principle did not apply here. The Superior Court emphasized that the scramble pills inside the shoebox were not in plain view; even in full daylight, they would have remained hidden inside the closed box. The use of a flashlight to peer into the hole was not passive illumination—it was a directed, investigative act taken without a warrant or exigent justification.
Outcome
The Superior Court reversed the denial of suppression, vacated the judgment of sentence, and remanded the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented, so the Commonwealth may file for review by the entire court.
Key Takeaways
The case underscores the robust privacy protections for closed containers inside a residence.
Police officers responding to overdoses or other emergencies must avoid converting caretaking roles into investigative searches unless they obtain a warrant or meet one of the narrow exceptions.
The plain view doctrine does not permit flashlight-aided searches of opaque containers without probable cause and lawful access.
This decision reinforces a critical constitutional limit on police authority and serves as a cautionary tale: even in good-faith responses to public health emergencies, law enforcement must respect established privacy rights.
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
Attorney Goldstein Wins Reversal of Dismissal of PCRA Petition on Prosecutorial Misconduct Claim
Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein
Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, recently won the Superior Court appeal of the denial of a PCRA petition. In the case of Commonwealth v. S.D., the Superior Court reversed the denial of a PCRA petition and remanded the new case for an evidentiary hearing on whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to improper arguments from the prosecutor during opening statements closing arguments.
S.D. was charged with burglary and related charges for an alleged home invasion burglary. During both opening statements and closing arguments, the prosecutor repeatedly urged the jury to imagine themselves in the victims’ shoes and think about how scary the incident must have been for them. S.D.’s trial attorney failed to object to this argument.
Pennsylvania appellate courts have long held that prosecutors may not make argument designed specifically to inflame the passions of the jury or designed solely to get the jury to convict based on sympathy for the victim. Prosecutors have lots of leeway in terms of being allowed to use oratorical flourish and in making argument, but there are limits. Indeed, courts have repeatedly held that urging jurors to imagine themselves as the victims of a crime is improper.
After S.D.’s appeals were unsuccessful, S.D. retained Attorney Goldstein to file a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition (PCRA). Attorney Goldstein filed the petition, alleging that trial counsel provided the ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to the prosecutor’s improper argument. The trial court denied the petition, but the Superior Court reversed the denial of the petition on appeal. The Superior Court recognized that the case law generally prohibits prosecutors from making arguments similar to those at issue in this case. The Court therefore remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on whether trial counsel had a strategic basis for failing to object. If the court finds that trial counsel did not have a good reason for failing to object, then S.D. may receive a new trial.
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in state or federal court in Pennsylvania? We can help.
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
PA Superior Court: Confessions Made to Police Officers at Church Do Not Qualify for Clergy-Penitent Privilege
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Ross, holding that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress a confession made to a police officer because the clergy-penitent privilege did not apply even though the defendant knew the officer from church.
The Facts of Ross
The defendant was convicted of rape, unlawful contact with a minor, endangering the welfare of children, corruption of minors, indecent assault, and incest following a 2020 jury trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The case stemmed from an incident that took place on August 13, 2014. The defendant allegedly entered the bedroom of his 15-year-old foster daughter and sexually assaulted her. The defendant’s adult daughter saw him leaving the complainant’s room and alerted the defendant’s wife. She immediately called the police and kicked him out of the house.
After being expelled from the home, the defendant sought guidance from his pastor. His pastor was a longtime friend and fellow minister. After the defendant told the pastor that he fondled the complainant, the pastor then contacted a Philadelphia Police Officer who was also a pastor and co-host of a religious radio show and asked the officer to meet with the defendant at their church. The officer went to the church, and the defendant admitted to fondling the complainant to the officer. The officer then drove the defendant to the Special Victims Unit (SVU) to turn himself in.
The defendant was arrested and subsequently charged with multiple sexual offenses. He moved to suppress the statement to his pastor as well as the statement to the officer. The trial court excluded the statement which was made to the pastor under the clergy-penitent privilege, but it denied the motion with respect to the officer. The court found that the officer was acting as an officer and not as a pastor, and so the defendant was not entitled to the clergy-penitent privilege.
The defendant proceeded by way of jury trial, and the jury convicted him. The trial court sentenced him to 27.5 - 55 years’ incarceration and required him to register as a sex offender for life under SORNA. The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
The Superior Court Appeal
The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that:
His statements to the police officer should have been suppressed because he made them while he was in custody and he had not received his Miranda warnings.
His confession to the officer should have been excluded under the clergy privilege because the officer was off-duty and present in the church in a religious capacity rather than acting as a police officer.
The Superior Court’s Ruling
The Superior Court rejected both claims and affirmed the conviction.
Miranda Violation Claim Denied: The Superior Court found that the defendant was not in custody when he made his statements to the officer. His meeting with the officer was voluntary, and he agreed to turn himself in. The officer was off-duty and never arrested the defendant. Instead, the pastor called the officer, and the defendant agreed to speak with him at the church. The police do not have to give Miranda warnings to someone who is not in custody because Miranda only applies to custodial interrogations. The defendant was not in custody at the church when he made the statement to the officer, so the officer did not have to provide Miranda warnings in order for the statement to be admissible at trial. The Court also noted that although the defendant filed a motion to suppress based on the lack of Miranda warnings, his attorney did not really pursue that claim at the motions hearing.
Clergy Privilege Claim Rejected: The Court agreed that the defendant’s initial conversation with his pastor was privileged, but it ruled that the privilege did not extend to statements made in the presence of the officer. The Court found that the defendant viewed the officer as a trusted police officer or friend, not a spiritual advisor, and sought his assistance in surrendering to authorities. The Court reached this conclusion even though the officer was also a pastor. It concluded that the officer was not acting as the defendant’s pastor as the time but instead there to help him turn himself in.
The clergy-penitent privilege is codified under Pennsylvania law. It provides:
23 Pa.C.S. § 5943. Confidential communications to clergymen.
No clergyman, priest, rabbi or minister of the gospel of any regularly established church or religious organization, except clergymen or ministers, who are self-ordained or who are members of religious organizations in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers, who while in the course of his duties has acquired information from any person secretly and in confidence shall be compelled, or allowed without consent of such person, to disclose that information in any legal proceeding, trial or investigation before any government unit.
The problem for the defendant here is that both the trial court and Superior Court found that the officer was not acting in his course of duties as a pastor at the time of the confession. Therefore, the privilege did not apply.
The Takeaway
Ultimately, the result here is not particularly surprising. Non-custodial, voluntary confessions to police officers are typically going to be admissible in court even if the police officer knows the defendant from church. This case, however, highlights that Miranda rights only apply to custodial interrogations. If the defendant is not in custody and interrogated, then they are not entitled to Miranda warnings. Further, the remedy for a Miranda violation is the suppression of the statement; it is not necessarily the dismissal of the case. Additionally, privileges are important, but they only apply in limited circumstances. The clergy-penitent privilege does not apply unless the person is acting within the scope of their religious duties, and here, the officer was obviously a police officer rather than the defendant’s pastor. The privilege also does not apply when a third party is present. Therefore, the Superior Court denied the appeal.
Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in state or federal court in Pennsylvania? We can help.
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
PA Superior Court: Conditions Violated Must Actually Be Part of County Probation or Parole Sentence for Defendant to Be Found in Violation of Probation
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Baldassano, 2025 PA Super 26, holding that the trial court improperly found the defendant in violation of county parole conditions which were never part of the defendant’s sentence. The Superior Court therefore vacated the defendant’s incarceration sentence and released him.
The Facts of Baldassano
The defendant was convicted of terroristic threats, stalking, and harassment after years of allegedly harassing a former college acquaintance. The charges stemmed from a pattern of anonymous phone calls, social media impersonation, and threats against the complainant and her family. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to a term of thirty days to four years’ incarceration with immediate parole at his minimum sentence along with certain conditions.
The parole conditions required:
A drug and alcohol evaluation and compliance with any treatment recommendations.
Continued mental health treatment.
Two years of active supervision followed by two years of inactive supervision, during which the court specifically ordered that he was only required to avoid contact with the victim and was not required to comply with any other probation department rules and regulations.
Parole Violation Allegation and Revocation
While the defendant was serving the “inactive supervision” portion of the county parole, the Lebanon County Department of Probation sought to revoke his parole, alleging:
Positive drug tests and possession of controlled substances.
A new criminal arrest.
At the defendant’s Gagnon II hearing, the defense attorney moved to dismiss the probation violation, arguing that neither condition applied to the defendant given the terms of the inactive supervision. The trial court dismissed the drug-related violation but revoked the defendant’s parole based solely on the new criminal charge. The trial court recommitted the defendant to serve the balance of his original sentence with parole eligibility after eighteen months. The defendant appealed.
The Superior Court Appeal
On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court’s order and found that the trial court erred in revoking parole. The Superior Court concluded that per the specific terms of the trial court’s sentencing order, the defendant was simply not subject to any conditions other than the requirement that he not have contact with the complainant. The Court found:
By the explicit terms of the sentencing order, after two years, the defendant was not subject to the normal county probation department rules and regulations, which included the requirement not to commit new offenses.
While committing a new crime typically warrants parole revocation in almost every case, it must be based on an actual parole condition to which the defendant was subject. Here, his only enforceable condition in the last two years of the sentence was to avoid contact with the complainant.
Because the Commonwealth and probation department had only pursued revocation based on new charges (and not a violation of any of the three enumerated parole conditions that applied during his sentence), the trial court lacked legal grounds to revoke his parole even though new arrests are usually the basis for probation or parole revocation.
The Superior Court therefore vacated the order sentencing the defendant to prison and remanded for further proceedings.
The Takeaway
In many cases, it is common for defense counsel to concede a probation or parole violation and focus on obtaining a light sentence such as more probation or parole or a short period of incarceration. It is important, however, to actually read the judgment of sentence and sentencing transcript in order to make sure that any alleged conditions of supervision are actually part of the sentence. If the probation or parole department has moved to hold a defendant in violation of a condition that does not exist, then the defendant should not be found in violation.
In order for there to be a probation violation, the conditions which were allegedly violated must have been explicitly stated on the record at the time of sentencing. They cannot be expanded unilaterally by probation officers beyond what the sentencing judge ordered without notice and a hearing. Notably, this rule does not always apply - defendants on state parole and state supervised probation may have fewer protections than defendants on county probation or parole because certain state statutes and regulations allow the parole board to impose some conditions of supervision.
Even serious new charges cannot justify revocation if the probation or parole sentence specifically limits the conditions of probation or parole such that it does not require the probationer to avoid getting arrested. This is an unusual case because this type of probation or parole is rare, but it is still important for the defense attorney to carefully review the record when representing someone who has been charged with a violation of probation or parole.
Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in state or federal court in Pennsylvania? We can help.
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.