Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog
PA Superior Court: Police Need a Good Reason for a K9 Sniff, and the Commonwealth Must Actually Prove Inevitable Discovery with Evidence
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the cases of Commonwealth v. Brinson and Commonwealth v. Flamer, holding that nervousness alone does not justify prolonging a traffic stop to bring a drug dog to the scene to have the dog smell the car for drugs. The Court also held that the mere fact that the police could have towed the car did not establish that the police would have inevitably discovered the contraband as the Commonwealth introduced no evidence or testimony that the police in fact would have towed the car and conducted an inventory search.
The Facts of the Case
A Philadelphia police officer conducted a traffic stop of a car after seeing the car fail to stop at a stop sign. Flamer was driving, and Brinson was in the passenger seat. During the stop, the officer felt that both men seemed nervous. Therefore, he called for a K9 unit. The dog alerted to the presence of narcotics, leading to a search of the car. Officers searched the car and discovered a firearm with an altered serial number and oxycodone pills.
The Commonwealth charged Brinson and Flamer with various offenses, including illegal possession of a firearm (VUFA) and controlled substances. Both defendants filed motions to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop was unlawfully prolonged without sufficient reasonable suspicion. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to detain the defendants and extend the stop until a drug dog arrived. The court also found that the Commonwealth failed to show that the police would have inevitably discovered the contraband by towing the vehicle and conducting an inventory search. The prosecution appealed.
The Superior Court Appeal
The Superior Court affirmed. It agreed with the trial court on both issues, finding that the police did not have reasonable suspicion and that the Commonwealth failed to prove inevitable discovery with actual testimony or evidence. The Court addressed both issues:
Prolonged Traffic Stop:
The Court held that the stop, which extended 10–15 minutes before the K-9 unit was summoned, exceeded its permissible scope. The officer lacked specific and articulable facts (reasonable suspicion) to justify extending the stop beyond its original purpose of addressing a traffic violation.
Nervous behavior alone was insufficient to establish the necessary reasonable suspicion for detaining the defendants, extending the stop, and bringing a dog to the scene to conduct the search. The officer claimed he smelled marijuana, as well, but he did not smell the marijuana until later in the stop. Therefore, the officer’s detection of the marijuana odor occurred after the stop should have reasonably concluded, further undermining the justification for the K-9 search.
Inevitable Discovery Doctrine:
The Commonwealth argued that the evidence would have been discovered during an inventory search following impoundment due to lack of insurance. However, the court found this exception inapplicable. The Commonwealth failed to establish that the police unequivocally would have towed the car and found the contraband. Instead, the Commonwealth showed only that the police could have towed the car, which was not enough. The inevitable discovery doctrine is very limited under Pennsylvania law and rarely operates other excuse the failure to comply with the warrant requirement. The police testimony established that towing decisions were discretionary, and the officer failed to establish or present a clear policy regarding inventory searches. The absence of a concrete policy establishing that the car would have in fact been towed defeated the inevitable discovery claim.
The court reiterated that police must demonstrate reasonable suspicion based on a totality of circumstances and that any extension of a traffic stop must align with the mission of the stop. This is a great decision for privacy rights in terms of limiting the inevitable discovery doctrine. It is not enough to show that the police could have eventually conducted a legal search - the Commonwealth has to show that an eventual legal search was a true inevitability, not merely that it could have happened even had the police not violated the defendant’s rights by conducting an illegal search.
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in state or federal court in Pennsylvania? We can help.
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys
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 Upholds Criminalizing Firearm Possession for Felons on Parole for Robbery
Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has just decided the case of Commonwealth v. Farmer. In Farmer, the Court upheld Pennsylvania’s felon in possession of a firearm statute (VUFA § 6105) against an unconstitutional as-applied challenge where the defendant was prosecuted for being a felon in possession of a firearm while on parole for robbery. It ultimately remains to be seen whether all felons may be permanently prohibited from possessing firearms for life following recent United States Supreme Court decisions like New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen expanding Second Amendment protections, but this was not a particularly close case as the defendant in this case was on parole for robbery at the time of his arrest for possessing a firearm.
The Facts of Farmer
The defendant was on parole for a robbery conviction when police obtained information that he possessed a firearm. Acting on a search warrant, officers found a .40 caliber Beretta in his house. Prosecutors charged him with a violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105, which prohibits firearm possession by individuals with certain criminal convictions, including robbery. A jury convicted him of illegal gun possession, and he was sentenced to five to ten years’ incarceration.
The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing on appeal that § 6105 violated his Second Amendment rights. Specifically, he claimed the law was unconstitutional as applied to him. He cited the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen. Bruen established a new framework for evaluating gun regulations but did not make it totally clear whether felon-in-possession statutes remain constitutional.
The Issues on Appeal
In Farmer, the Court addressed two issues as required by Bruen.
Does the Second Amendment apply to convicted felons like the defendant?
The Court found that the answer to this question is yes. The Court ruled that the defendant, as an American citizen, is included within "the people" protected by the Second Amendment. Drawing on District of Columbia v. Heller and Bruen, the Court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that felons are categorically excluded from Second Amendment protections because they are not among “the people” to which the Second Amendment extends.Could the government restrict the defendant’s gun rights based on his prior conviction?
Again, the Court found in the affirmative. While the Second Amendment protects the defendant in general, the Court held that the restriction on his firearm rights is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Court compared § 6105 to historical laws, such as “going armed” statutes, which disarmed individuals who were considered dangerous. The defendant’s conviction for robbery—in his case, a violent felony involving a gun—fit squarely within this historical framework. The Court relied heavily on United States v. Rahimi in its analysis as there, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of disarming protection from abuse order defendants based on a lower standard than a conviction obtained with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
This decision highlights the limits of Second Amendment protections for individuals with criminal convictions. While courts recognize that the Second Amendment applies broadly, they continue to uphold restrictions when those laws have strong historical support, and the historical statutes need only be similar - they do not have to be identical. For individuals with felony convictions—particularly those involving violence or firearms—this case reaffirms that Pennsylvania’s prohibition on gun possession remains enforceable. The problem, however, is that no Pennsylvania state appellate court has yet addressed a challenge to a less serious, non-violent offense. The federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that an individual who had a thirty year old non-violent misdemeanor theft offense could possess a firearm even though Pennsylvania law prohibited it, but Pennsylvania courts have not yet determined what the limits are. It may be that some portions of the § 6105 statute are unconstitutional in that it may not be permissible under the Second Amendment to prohibit individuals from possessing firearms for life based on less serious or older convictions. But in this case, the defendant was actively on parole for a violent felony. Therefore, whether there are limits on disarming felons who have less serious or older criminal records will remain an open question. If you are charged with a violation of § 6105 based on a less serious criminal record, it may still be worth filing a motion to dismiss the charges on Second Amendment grounds.
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania? We can help.
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire Arguing before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
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 Supreme Court: Plain View Doctrine Still Applies to Cars in Pennsylvania
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Saunders. In Saunders, the Court held addressed the legality of a warrantless seizure of a gun from a car during a routine traffic stop. The decision, issued on November 20, 2024, affirmed the lower courts' rulings, concluding that the seizure complied with constitutional requirements under the plain view doctrine. Prior to this decision, it was a somewhat open question as to whether the plain view doctrine still applied in Pennsylvania or whether the police were required to get a search warrant prior to seizing contraband that was in plain view in an car in the absence of some kind of emergency or exigent circumstance. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has now held that the police may go into the car and seize contraband which is in plain view before they get the warrant.
The Facts of Saunders
On November 18, 2020, police officers stopped Saunders’ car in Philadelphia for several traffic violations, including illegal window tint and failure to use a turn signal. During the stop, Officer Ibbotson observed Saunders making “furtive movements” toward the floor of the car. Looking through the windshield, the officer saw the handle of a gun beneath the driver’s seat. During questioning, Saunders admitted that he did not possess a valid license to carry a firearm. The officers subsequently seized the gun without a warrant, and they determined from the serial number that the gun had been reported stolen. Prosecutors charged Saunders with various firearms offenses under the uniform firearms act.
Saunders moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the seizure violated his constitutional rights under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions. He argued that, under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's earlier decision in Commonwealth v. Alexander, a warrant was required for any vehicle search or seizure unless exigent circumstances were present. He further argued that the police could have secured the car and obtained a search warrant prior to going into the car and retrieving the gun. Thus, the issue on appeal was whether the “plain view exception” to the warrant requirement still applies in Pennsylvania or whether the police must get a warrant before seizing even contraband which is in plain view.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the seizure under the plain view doctrine, which allows warrantless seizures if:
The officer views the object from a lawful vantage point,
The incriminating nature of the object is immediately apparent, and
The officer has a lawful right of access to the object.
The Court reasoned:
Officer Ibbotson had a lawful vantage point during the traffic stop and observed the gun through the windshield. He did not have to go into the car without a warrant in order to see the gun.
The gun’s incriminating nature was immediately apparent because Saunders admitted he lacked a firearm license before the officer retrieved the weapon.
The officer had lawful access to the vehicle due to the unexpected nature of the discovery, consistent with precedent from another case, Commonwealth v. McCree.
Key Takeaways
Plain View Doctrine: The Court reaffirmed that unexpected probable cause during a lawful stop can justify warrantless seizures of objects in plain view.
Privacy Interests: The ruling emphasized the distinction between minor intrusions to seize objects in plain view and full-scale vehicle searches, which require a warrant or exigent circumstances.
Impact of Precedent: The decision clarified that Alexander, which overruled broad warrant exceptions for vehicle searches, did not eliminate the plain view doctrine.
Outcome
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys
Saunders was convicted of multiple firearms offenses, including carrying a firearm without a license, and sentenced to three and a half to seven years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress, concluding that evidence lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine remains admissible in Pennsylvania.
This decision makes clear that there are exceptions to the Supreme Court’s holding in Commonwealth v. Alexander that the police must get a search warrant before going into the car. If the police see guns, drugs, or other evidence in plain view from outside of the vehicle, they may be able to enter the car to seize it before they get a search warrant. And once in the vehicle, they may be able to legally seize anything else they can now see while retrieving the contraband that was in plain view. Ultimately, it is generally not advisable to leave an illegal gun lying around. However, motions may still be litigated as to whether the police had reasonable suspicion for the stop, whether they extended the stop improperly, whether they asked questions which went beyond the actual mission of the stop, and whether they could actually see the contraband before entering the vehicle. Therefore, in many cases, there may still be challenges to police action even where the police claim that they could see contraband in plain view. For example, even if the gun was in plain view, it would still likely be suppressed had the police pulled the car over without a legitimate reason.
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?
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.
PA Superior Court: Warrantless Search of Car Requires Suppression of Gun in Illegal Firearm Possession Case
Commonwealth v. Camacho
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently decided the case of Commonwealth v. Camacho, reversing the trial court’s order denying the defendant's motion to suppress an illegal gun which was found in his car during a warrantless search of the car. The case illustrates the strict requirements police must follow in order to conduct a warrantless search of a car in Pennsylvania following the Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Alexander.
The Facts of Camacho
On October 9, 2020, Pennsylvania State Police Troopers pulled over the defendant, Camacho, after observing him driving erratically in nearby Bucks County. Camacho pulled over on command. After the police stopped the car and approached it, the troopers noticed the smell of alcohol and marijuana. The defendant admitted he did not have a driver’s license. The troopers conducted a frisk of the defendant and found marijuana. The troopers also noticed an empty gun holster strapped to the defendant’s ankle. Naturally, they asked Camacho if he had a gun on him. He denied it. Despite Camacho's denial of having a firearm, the officers forcibly detained him after he briefly resisted. They forced him to the ground and handcuffed him.
With Camacho handcuffed and secured, the officers searched his vehicle without a warrant and found a loaded firearm under the driver's seat. The police formally arrested the defendant, and prosecutors charged him with:
Persons Not to Possess Firearms (VUFA § 6105)
Firearms Not to Be Carried Without a License (VUFA § 6106)
Resisting Arrest or Other Law Enforcement
Simple Assault
Recklessly Endangering Another Person
Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana for Personal Use
Use or Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
Various Traffic Offenses
The Suppression Hearing and Trial
Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the warrantless search of his car violated his rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Federal law does not require the police to get a search warrant prior to searching a car, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that law enforcement officers must obtain a search warrant prior to searching a car unless an exception applies. In this case, the defendant argued that there were no “exigent circumstances” to justify the search because he and his passenger were restrained and in handcuffs at the time of the search.
The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the Commonwealth that the presence of the empty holster and Camacho's earlier resistance justified the search. Camacho was convicted and sentenced to 4½ to 10 years in prison followed by a period of probation.
Superior Court Appeal
The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On appeal, Camacho argued that the police did not have any exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless search of his car. The Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed and reversed the denial of the motion to suppress.
The Superior Court emphasized that under Pennsylvania law, a warrantless search of a vehicle is only permissible when both probable cause and exigent circumstances exist. In this case, while the officers had probable cause to suspect criminal activity, the Court found that the Commonwealth failed to show exigent circumstances to justify the failure to get a warrant.
The Superior Court's Reasoning:
At the time of the search, Camacho was handcuffed, lying on the ground, and surrounded by multiple officers.
His passenger, Ms. Clark, was also handcuffed and secured in the police vehicle.
The car was parked on the side of a wide shoulder, away from traffic, and posed no immediate threat to the public or officers.
The Court determined that, with both Camacho and his passenger fully restrained, there was no risk that either one of them could access the vehicle or destroy evidence.
Additionally, the Court noted that there were at least six officers present at the scene, and they had discussed towing the vehicle. This indicated that they had sufficient time and personnel to secure the car and obtain a warrant.
Based on these factors, the Superior Court found that the situation no longer posed an immediate danger to officer safety or a threat of evidence destruction, meaning there were no exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search. As a result, the Court reversed the trial court’s ruling, vacated Camacho’s conviction, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Commonwealth will likely be unable to proceed with the case on remand.
The Takeaway
The Camacho case highlights the importance of challenging unlawful searches and seizures when the police search a car without a warrant. Even when the police believe they have probable cause, they must still obtain a search warrant or demonstrate that exigent circumstances justify an exception. This decision reinforces that without a valid justification, evidence obtained through warrantless searches should be suppressed.
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?
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 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.