Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 12/10/24 Zak Goldstein 12/10/24

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

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein — 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.

Zak Goldstein 9/11/24 Zak Goldstein 9/11/24

PA Superior Court: Warrantless Search of Car Requires Suppression of Gun in Illegal Firearm Possession Case

Commonwealth v. Camacho

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 Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire — Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Zak Goldstein 8/4/24 Zak Goldstein 8/4/24

Third Circuit Court of Appeals: Second Amendment Does Not Provide Right to Possess Firearm While on Federal Supervised Release

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein — Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has just decided the case of United States v. Moore, holding that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual with the right to possess a firearm while on federal supervised release. Although recent federal case law has expanded some of the protections provided by the Second Amendment, the federal courts have now begun to walk that case law back and re-impose limits which historically appeared to be settled.

The Facts of Moore

Moore had previous federal convictions for distributing cocaine and possessing a firearm as a felon. Nonetheless, in 2021, while on federal supervised release, he ended up in possession of a firearm. After a night out celebrating his birthday, Moore and his fiancée returned to their Pittsburgh residence, where they discovered two intruders breaking into a car parked near their home.

Moore's fiancée retrieved a handgun from a safe and handed it to Moore before leaving the house with her children. Moore, now armed, confronted the intruders and fired three shots, striking one of them in the leg. A few days later, Moore’s fiancée turned the firearm in to the police and told them what happened. Moore called his federal probation officer and reported the incident, as well. After the police investigated, federal prosecutors decided to charge Moore with possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

The Issue

Moore pleaded guilty to the charge, but as part of the plea deal, he reserved the right to argue on appeal that the federal firearms statute was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The district court sentenced him to 84 months’ incarceration followed by three years of supervised release. Moore appealed to the Third Circuit, and on appeal, he argued that he still had a Second Amendment right to possess a firearm while on supervised release. The defense argued that the right was particularly strong in this case because he was engaged in the protection of his home when the incident occurred.

The Third Circuit’s Decision

The Third Circuit rejected this argument, holding that Moore, as a convicted felon on active federal supervised release, did not have the constitutional right to possess a firearm. The court's decision was based on historical precedents, which have consistently allowed the disarmament of convicts as part of their sentences. Indeed, many statutes historically allowed the government to seize all of an individual’s possessions following a conviction. If the government may seize everything, then they may seize just firearms, as well. The court noted that the disarmament is not permanent. Instead, it is a temporary measure taken solely during the period of the sentence, and supervised release is part of the sentence.

The court emphasized that supervised release is an integral component of the criminal sentence, similar to imprisonment. Thus, restricting firearm possession during this time aligns with the government's interests in ensuring public safety and aiding the defendant’s rehabilitation.

The Takeaway

The court’s ruling reaffirms the government's authority to impose firearm restrictions on individuals with felony convictions, even after their release from prison, as long as they are still under supervision. There have been some successful challenges to whether an individual may be permanently barred from possessing a firearm due to a felony conviction, and the law is still not settled in that area. The Pennsylvania state appellate courts, for example, have found that individuals with prior felony convictions may not possess firearms, while the Third Circuit has found that an individual with an old non-violent theft offense may not be barred from possessing a gun for life. This case makes it clear, however, that a court may prohibit a defendant from possessing a gun at least while they are on probation, parole, or federal supervised release.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Criminal Lawyer Zak Goldstein — Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Zak Goldstein 7/6/24 Zak Goldstein 7/6/24

PA Superior Court: Police May Temporarily Seize Gun in Plain View During Traffic Stop

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Hawkins-Davenport, holding that if the police see a gun in plain view during a traffic stop, they may temporarily seize and secure the gun during the stop. They may also ask the driver of the vehicle if they have a license to carry the gun.

The Facts of Hawkins-Davenport

Philadelphia Police Officers McCabe and Torres conducted a traffic stop of the defendant because his driver’s side brake light was not working. Officer Torres approached the passenger side of the car while his partner went to the driver’s side, and Officer Torres immediately saw a gun sitting on the passenger seat. Officer Torres reached into the car and took the gun. He then held onto it for the remainder of the stop, and he asked the defendant if the defendant had a license to carry the firearm. The defendant told him that the did not have a license, so the police arrested him. Philadelphia prosecutors charged the defendant with gun charges including carrying a firearm without a license in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 and carrying a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108.

The defendant moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the police illegally searched the car and seized the gun because they had no reason to believe that he was going to use the gun on them or that he possessed the gun illegally before they seized it. He also argued that his statement that he did not have a license to carry should be suppressed because the police seized the gun without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and questioned him without first giving him Miranda warnings. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, ruling that the traffic stop was legal but the police had no reason to seize the gun or question the defendant about it. The Commonwealth appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that Officer Torres's actions in securing the firearm were justified as a necessary precaution to ensure officer safety during the traffic stop. The prosecution contended that the trial court erred in suppressing the firearm and the defendant’s statements given the context of the situation in which the police did nothing more than secure the gun for officer safety purposes during a brief traffic stop.

The Superior Court agreed with the Commonwealth and reversed. The Court reviewed the transcripts and the body cam footage and agreed that the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. The Court also found that the officer had the right to secure the firearm that was in plain view during the traffic stop regardless of whether the gun was legally or illegally possessed. The Court noted that officers have the right to take reasonable precautions to ensure their safety during traffic stops. The Court referenced prior cases such as Commonwealth v. Ross and Pennsylvania v. Mimms, noting that securing a firearm observed in plain view is a reasonable safety measure. Further, the officers did not unlawfully extend the stop by asking just one question as to whether the defendant had a license to carry. Therefore, the trial court should not have granted the motion to suppress, and the Superior Court reversed.

In this case, the Superior Court approved of the officers’ actions because they were focused on officer safety, the gun was just out and sitting on the passenger seat, and the officers did not extend the stop by extensively questioning the defendant. They had the right to take quick action to secure the gun and ask a question about the legality of the gun. The result likely would have been different had the gun not been so obviously in plain view or had the police needed to significantly prolong the stop in order to question the defendant about firearms and firearms licenses.