PA Supreme Court Agrees Police May Not Search Cell Phone Without Warrant

Zak Goldstein - Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney

Warrantless Searches of Cell Phones in Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has just decided the case of Commonwealth v. Fulton, agreeing with the United States Supreme Court that law enforcement officers generally may not search a cell phone incident to a defendant’s arrest without first obtaining a search warrant. The Court further concluded that the introduction of the evidence obtained from the illegal search of the defendant’s phone in this homicide case did not amount to harmless error. Therefore, the Court reversed the defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial.  

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Fulton

On June 15, 2010, Philadelphia police received a call from Michael Toll reporting that he had been shot. Police responded to the call and found Toll in a vehicle on the sidewalk with gunshot wounds on the right side of his body. Toll told the police that Jeff shot him, and he gave them a description of Jeff. Police took Toll to the hospital and searched the car. They recovered a cell phone, and the cell phone showed that Toll had exchanged phone calls with someone listed in the phone as Jeff. Police determined that the number for Jeff was linked to a prepaid phone with no subscriber information.

Toll eventually died from his wounds. On the morning that he died, police received a call concerning drug activity and a man with a gun at a specific address. Police responded to the call and found several individuals in and around a 2002 green Mercury Marquis. The police saw a gun, a gun holster, and cell phones in the vehicle. They arrested the four men who were nearby. One of those men was Fulton, the defendant in this case. Police took a cell phone from Fulton incident to his arrest and obtained a search warrant for the vehicle but not the phone.

The Search of the Phone

The phones were given to Homicide Detectives who were investigating Toll’s death. The detectives opened the phones, turned them on, and examined them in order to determine the phone number associated with each phone. One of the phones turned out to have the same number as the phone number for Jeff that was in the decedent’s phone. Homicide detectives did not obtain a warrant prior to going through the phones. Further, detectives began answering incoming calls to the phone that had been linked to Jeff.

One person called and eventually told detectives that the phone number belonged to Fulton and that she regularly purchased heroin from him. Armed with this information, detectives interrogated Fulton, and Fulton promptly incriminated himself in the shooting. Police obtained a search warrant for Fulton’s residence and found ammunition which was the same as that used in the fatal shooting. Police also interviewed some of the other men who they had arrested along with Fulton and obtained statements from them which implicated Fulton in the murder. Accordingly, police charged Fulton with murder.

The Motion to Suppress

Prior to trial, Fulton moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless search and use of the cell phone. The trial court denied the motion, but the trial court made its decision prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. California holding that police must obtain a warrant prior to searching a cell phone. Fulton went to trial and was eventually convicted of third-degree murder and sentenced to 15-30 years of incarceration. Fulton appealed to the Superior Court, and the Superior Court denied the appeal.

By the time of the Superior Court’s decision, the United States Supreme Court had held that police may not search a phone without a warrant. The Superior Court recognized that police should have obtained a search warrant for the phone, but it held that the intrusion into the phone was minimal because police did not review personal data or social media located on the phone. Therefore, the Superior Court held that Riley did not apply. It also found that to the extent that the police violated Fulton’s rights, the introduction of the illegal evidence amounted to harmless error which would not justify overturning the third-degree murder conviction.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

Fulton filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately overturned the defendant’s conviction. The Court concluded that there was really no dispute. Riley’s holding could not be clearer: in order to access any information on a cell phone, police must first obtain a warrant. The Supreme Court did not create an exception for what police or courts may deem a minimally invasive search of a cell phone. The Court specifically rejected a case-by-case test for searches of phones. Instead, it held that police simply must get a warrant or they cannot use the results of the search of a cell phone in court. Any search of a cell phone requires a warrant.

The Court concluded that homicide detectives conducted three separate searches of the phone without a warrant. First, they searched the phone by powering it on. Second, they searched the phone by going into it and obtaining its phone number. Third, they searched the phone by monitoring incoming calls and text messages.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers

Having concluded that the police violated Fulton’s rights by searching the phone without a warrant, the Court next found that the constitutional violation did not amount to harmless error. The Court ruled that all of the evidence that was found due to the searches of the phone must be suppressed. This included the existence of the woman who identified Fulton as a drug dealer, her statement, and the evidence that the phone number was the same number as that for Jeff. Given the extensive use of this evidence against the defendant at trial and the fact that much of the evidence was contradicted and inconsistent, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that the conviction could stand under the harmless error doctrine. Accordingly, the Court vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial for Fulton without the illegally seized evidence. 

Third Circuit Applies Good Faith Exception to FBI Reliance on Jurisdictionally Defective Search Warrant in Child Porn Malware Case

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.

The Third Circuit has just decided the case of United States v. Werdene. In Werdene, the Third Circuit held that Federal Bureau of Investigation agents acted in good faith on a jurisdictionally defective search warrant which authorized them to install malware/tracking software on users outside of the district in which the warrant was issued as part of an investigation into child pornography. The facts of the case are notable because in this case, the Government seized a child pornography server and continued to operate it, thereby distributing child pornography as part of its attempt to identify the users of the server. Nonetheless, because agents believed they had obtained a valid search warrant, the Third Circuit held that the lower court properly declined to suppress the resulting evidence. 

United States v. Werdene

The Werdene case began with an FBI investigation into a website called Playpen. Playpen was a forum on the dark web that was used to distribute child porn. Specifically, Playpen was on the Tor network. Users were able to conceal their actual IP addresses while accessing the network, making it difficult for law enforcement to track the users of the website even if law enforcement seized the site itself. Under normal circumstances, when law enforcement seizes a website, officers can obtain logs of the IP addresses which have accessed the site. They can then trace those IP addresses back to specific internet accounts and obtain search warrants for those users’ homes or businesses. The Tor network prevents the server that the user accesses from recording the user’s actual IP address, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible, for law enforcement to obtain a list of IP addresses that accessed the site even after they seize the server itself. 

In 2014, the FBI learned that Playpen was actually being hosted on a computer in North Carolina. The FBI quickly arrested the owner of the site and also obtained a warrant to seize the server. The FBI then moved the server to a government facility in the Eastern District of Virginia and obtained a wiretap order to monitor the communications on the server. The FBI continued to operate the Playpen website and distribute child pornography in the hopes of developing a method to circumvent Tor and identify the users of the website.

In order to get around Tor's privacy protections, the FBI created a form of malware that would provide it with a user’s IP address when the user accessed the site. The FBI changed Playpen’s code so that when a user accessed the website, the user would automatically download software which would search the computer for its IP address and other identifying information and transmit that information to the FBI.

Prior to deploying this software, the FBI obtained a search warrant from a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Virginia permitting it to deploy the malware on the computers that accessed the website. The order authorized the FBI to install the code on computers “wherever located.” Thus, this one warrant issued by a single Magistrate Judge in Virginia authorized the FBI to search computers across the world, most of which were located outside of that judicial district in Virginia.

The data from the malware eventually revealed that the defendant in the case had accessed the site and downloaded child pornography. The FBI obtained a search warrant for his home from a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seized his computers, and found incriminating materials. Accordingly, federal prosecutors charged him with possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2252(a)(4)(B).

Motion to Suppress

Werdene moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that FBI agents relied on an improperly issued search warrant because the warrant failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of then Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 41(b) has since been amended to avoid the issues raised by this case. At the time, it gave a magistrate judge the power to “issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district.” It also contained four exceptions, none of which authorized a magistrate judge to issue a search warrant for property outside of the judge’s district. Accordingly, the Third Circuit found that the search warrant was invalid because the magistrate judge did not have the authority under the rules to issue it. The court further concluded that the warrant was void ab initio, meaning it would be the same as if the Government had no warrant at all.

The Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule 

Nonetheless, the Third Circuit refused to suppress the evidence. Instead, it found that the agents acted in good faith when they relied on the defective search warrant. The purpose of the exclusionary rule, which requires the suppression of some illegally seized evidence, is to deter illegal police conduct. Where suppression of the evidence would have no deterrent effect because police acted in good faith, federal courts will refuse to suppress the evidence.

Notably, Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly rejected this good faith exception and held that the Pennsylvania Constitution, unlike the United States Constitution, requires the suppression of illegally seized evidence even where the police acted in good faith. Here, the court found that the FBI believed they had a valid search warrant. Therefore, there would be no deterrent effect to be gained suppressing the evidence. The error was committed by the judge, not by the FBI. Accordingly, the court found that the good faith exception applied and refused to reverse the trial court’s decision.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

If you are facing criminal charges, we can help. Our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended thousands of cases in state and federal courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We offer a complimentary 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to any potential client who is facing criminal charges or who may be under investigation by law enforcement. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today. 

PA Superior Court Finds Birchfield Not Retroactive in PCRA Litigation

Criminal Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has just decided the case of Commonwealth v. Olson, holding that the new rule relating to DUI blood testing cases announced by the United States Supreme Court in Birchfield v. North Dakota may not be raised to challenge a DUI conviction in collateral litigation. This means that defendants who have been convicted of DUI based on evidence obtained via a now-illegal warrantless, coercive blood draw may not challenge their convictions by filing a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition in Pennsylvania state court.

Commonwealth v. Olson

In Olson, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of Driving Under the Influence in September 8, 2015. Because the defendant had numerous prior convictions for DUI, he was sentenced to 18 months to 5 years in state prison. He did not file an appeal to the Superior Court.

Instead, on August 17, 2016, he filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition challenging the legality of his sentence. The defendant argued two issues: first, that the mandatory minimum sentence that he received for his criminal conviction was rendered unconstitutional by the Birchfield decision. Second, he argued that Birchfield created a new substantive rule which courts must apply retroactively where the defendant timely files a PCRA Petition.

What is Birchfield? 

By way of background, Birchfield was an extremely important, recent United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that states may not impose criminal penalties on DUI suspects who refuse to consent to blood testing if the police have not obtained a warrant. This had the effect of radically changing Pennsylvania’s DUI laws because Pennsylvania had statutes on the books which imposed additional penalties on a DUI defendant in cases where the prosecution could prove that the defendant both was driving under the influence and that the defendant refused blood testing. Accordingly, Pennsylvania appellate courts have now found many sections of Pennsylvania’s DUI statute unconstitutional. Birchfield was decided between when the defendant in this case was sentenced and when the defendant filed the PCRA Petition, meaning the defendant sought to apply Birchfield to his case even though his case was already over by the time Birchfield was decided.

PCRA Petitions 

PCRA Petitions are initially filed in the trial court in which the defendant was convicted. If a trial court denies a PCRA Petition, the court’s decision can be appealed to the Superior Court. Here, the defendant filed his PCRA Petition in the trial court, and the trial court dismissed the petition, finding that the Petition was not timely filed and that the rule in Birchfield did not apply retroactively to cases which were no longer on direct appeal. The defendant appealed, and the Superior Court affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Is Birchfield Retroactive? 

The Superior Court found that Birchfield does not apply retroactively to closed cases. It cited previous case law for the proposition that “a new rule of law does not automatically render final, pre-existing sentences illegal.” Instead, an old rule applies in PCRA litigation, also known as collateral review, if 1) the rule is substantive or 2) the rule is a ‘watershed rule of criminal procedure’ implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding. Substantive rules decriminalize conduct or prohibit punishment against a class of persons. Rules that regulate only the manner of determining the defendant’s culpability are procedural.

The Court first found that the rule in Birchfield requiring a warrant before criminal penalties for refusing a blood draw could be imposed is procedural. The court reasoned that it does not alter the range of conduct or the class of persons punished by the law – DUI is still a crime, and blood tests are still permissible. Instead, it regulates only the manner of determining the degree of a defendant’s culpability.

Accordingly, as the law stands now, Birchfield challenges cannot be raised by filing a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition. However, additional appellate litigation may take place, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court or United States Supreme Court could review this decision and reach a different conclusion. It is important to note that Birchfield continues to apply in pending DUI cases. States may not punish defendants who refuse to submit to warrantless blood tests for refusing to submit to the test.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorneys

If you are facing criminal charges, we can help. Our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers and DUI defense attorneys have successfully defended thousands of cases. We offer a complimentary 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to every potential client who is facing criminal charges or who may be under investigation by law enforcement. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.  

The Use of Fingerprints in Pennsylvania Criminal Cases

Fingerprinting in Pennsylvania Criminal Cases

Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer Zak Goldstein

Law enforcement officers frequently attempt to solve criminal cases through the use of fingerprints in Pennsylvania. This guide explains when the police may take your fingerprints, whether you may ever have those fingerprints destroyed, and some of the problems inherent in fingerprint examination. It also discusses the recent case of Commonwealth v. Presher, in which the Superior Court held that the a court may not order a defendant to submit to fingerprinting after the defendant has been found not guilty at trial. The effect of the court's holding will be limited due to the relatively rare circumstances present in this case, but the Superior Court issued strong language in rejecting the idea that the trial court could continue to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant who has been acquitted. 

Will the police take my fingerprints if I get arrested in Pennsylvania?

The answer to this question is yes, with some exceptions. In Pennsylvania, the law requires a defendant who has been charged with a felony, misdemeanor, or certain summaries to undergo fingerprinting after being arrested. In most cases, you will be fingerprinted when you are taken to the police district upon arrest. In some cases, if you are not arrested and the case was initiated by a summons, the summons will command you to go to the police station to be fingerprinted. The summons will typically instruct you to have this done prior to the preliminary hearing; if not, then the magisterial district justice will usually order that it be done. Additionally, if someone filed a private criminal complaint against you, then you will be fingerprinted if you are convicted. Accordingly, the only time you do not have to worry about being fingerprinted is if you are arrested for a summary offense that does not have a recidivist misdemeanor clause in its statute and the case is not proceeded by a summons.  

What happens if I refuse to be fingerprinted? 

The failure to comply with this order could eventually result in the revocation of bail if a case is pending or a finding of contempt of court. In some cases, however, the police and prosecutors do not realize that the defendant has not been fingerprinted, and the case may fall through the cracks without the defendant getting fingerprinted. 

Can the police make me give my fingerprints if I have not been charged with a crime? 

There are ways for the police to get your fingerprints if they are still investigating the case and have not charged you with a crime. For example, the police could ask you for your consent. If you give consent, then the police can take your fingerprints without a warrant or an arrest. If you refuse to consent to fingerprinting and the police have not arrested you, then they could ask a judge to sign a search warrant ordering you to provide your fingerprints. In that case, the police would be able to get your fingerprints prior to making an arrest. If you refuse to provide them, then you could be held in contempt of court and arrested. Additionally, the police could use trickery to obtain your fingerprints. For example, if they remove an item from the trash that has your fingerprints on them, they would most likely be allowed to use any viable prints lifted from the item.  

Can I have my fingerprints destroyed if I win my case?

Unless you were fingerprinted as a juvenile, the answer to this question is no. Once you are arrested as an adult, the government will have your fingerprints for the rest of your life. This is true even if you win your case and obtain an expungement of your criminal record because the District Attorney is permitted to retain their case file in order to determine eligibility for diversionary programs in the future. Typically, once you are arrested, your fingerprints will be entered into the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, which is commonly referred to as AFIS. This is a system that holds thousands of fingerprints. As discussed later, this can be a real problem because fingerprint "science" is not perfect, and you could be arrested if a lab technician later subjectively determines that your fingerprints "matched" prints that were found at a crime scene.

How do the police analyze fingerprints?

Police frequently attempt to lift fingerprints in order to solve robbery, burglary, and other theft cases where there are no eyewitnesses. For example, let’s say that someone commits a burglary at a residence and leaves fingerprints on a glass door. A crime scene investigator will arrive and and “lift” the print from the door. This requires a lot of care because a print can easily be smudged or altered. Assuming the technician does not botch the lifting of the print, the police will then run the print through the AFIS system. At this point, the system will generate 20 fingerprints for a lab technician. It is important to note that lab technicians are not required to have a degree in forensic science. In fact, in Philadelphia, a technician does not even need to be a college graduate and need only have a high school diploma. Further, in Philadelphia, the unit that is responsible for analyzing fingerprints is not accredited.

After AFIS generates the potential matches, the technician will review the prints and see if he or she can find a “match.” In determining whether there is a match, the technician will look for several features of the print. Typically, there are about 150 characteristics of a fingerprint. However, there only needs to be between 10-12 similarities for a technician to say that someone’s prints match those taken from a crime scene. Further, in Philadelphia, these technicians will not analyze all 20 prints. Instead, they will just analyze a print until they find one that they believe is a match. After the technician believes they found a “match,” they will then dispose of the remaining prints.

In determining whether there is a match or not, the technician does not use a computer system to review the matches. Rather, the technician will use a magnifying glass or some other object to enhance his or her vision and make a determination using their eyes to see if there is a match. This may go without saying, but this is clearly subjective and not actual science. The use of the term "match" implies that computers are processing this data, but in reality, fingerprint "matches" are based solely on the subjective personal opinion of the examiner. 

Is fingerprint science perfect? 

Of course not. As discussed above, fingerprint examination is not really science. It is no surprise that mistakes happen, and these mistakes are not limited to the Philadelphia Police. In 2004, terrorists attacked trains in Madrid, Spain. This was a horrific event where 192 people were killed and thousands were injured. The United States government assisted the Spanish government in trying to track down who was responsible for these attacks. Specifically, the FBI was sent to help solve this case.  

During the investigation, the authorities located a fingerprint on a bag that contained one of the detonating devices and were able to lift the print. Based on their review of the print, the FBI concluded that it belonged to a Brandon Mayfield, a U.S. citizen who had been an FBI person of interest for quite some time. Consequently, Mr. Mayfield’s home was wiretapped and he eventually was arrested. However, Brandon Mayfield was not responsible for these acts. Investigators later concluded that that particular fingerprint belonged to a Ouhnane Daoud, an Algerian national. Eventually, the charges were dropped, and the United States government settled a lawsuit with Mr. Mayfield. Mr. Mayfield’s case shows how unreliable fingerprint analysis can be.         

Commonwealth v. Presher

In Mr. Presher’s case, the Superior Court did not get into the factual history of the case in great detail. However, what we do know is that he was charged with theft and receipt of stolen property. Additionally, Mr. Presher’s case was proceeded by a summons which means that he was subjected to the pre-conviction fingerprinting requirements. However, for some unknown reason, Mr. Presher was never fingerprinted.

Mr. Presher then proceeded to have his case tried by a jury where he was acquitted of all charges. Despite this, the Commonwealth still asked that Mr. Presher be fingerprinted. The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion. Mr. Presher then filed a motion for reconsideration, however that was denied. He then filed a timely appeal.

Can a court make me give my fingerprints if I was acquitted?

If you have already been fingerprinted, then the answer is unfortunately that your fingerprints will remain in the system. If you managed to make it to trial, however, then you cannot be ordered to submit to fingerprinting after an acquittal. The Superior Court recently addressed this issue in the case of Commonwealth v. Presher. In Presher, the court held that a defendant who has been acquitted cannot be required to submit to fingerprinting.    

In making its decision, the Superior Court focused largely on the language used in 18 Pa.C.S. § 9112 (b)(2). The statute reads:  

Where defendants named in police complaints are proceeded against by summons, or for offenses under section 3929 (relating to retail theft), the court of proper jurisdiction shall order the defendant to submit within five days of such order for fingerprinting by the municipal police of the jurisdiction in which the offense allegedly was committed or, in the absence of a police department, the State Police. Fingerprints so obtained shall, within 48 hours, be forwarded to the central repository in a manner and in such form as may be provided by the central repository.

The Superior Court's rationale stemmed from the fact that § 9112(b)(2) uses the word “defendant.” It does not use the word person, which is different from § 9101(a) which uses the word “person.” This is significant because for Mr. Presher, his case was initiated by a summons and thus fell under § 9101(b)(2).

After Mr. Presher was acquitted of his charges, the Superior Court held that he was no longer a “defendant.” Therefore, he was not subject to the fingerprinting requirements of § 9101(b)(2), and thus the trial court was incorrect in ordering him to provide his fingerprints to the Commonwealth. The Superior Court reasoned that if they ordered Mr. Presher to provide his fingerprints this would amount to a post-acquittal punishment.   

Experienced and Understanding Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorneys

If you are charged with a crime and the police are using fingerprint evidence against you, you need a skilled attorney with the knowledge and expertise to fight your case. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully litigated countless cases where the Commonwealth used fingerprint evidence against our clients. We offer a 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to discuss your case with an experienced and understanding criminal defense attorney today.