PA Superior Court: Police may search you to figure out who you are if you’re having a medical emergency

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Williams, holding that police did not illegally search the defendant and his bag where the search was not for evidence but instead to try to figure out who he was and why he was found unconscious on a public street.

The Facts of Williams

In Williams, the the police received a call for an unconscious male. They arrived at the location in the call, and they found the defendant unconscious in the driver’s seat of a blue Dodge Durango with the driver’s side door open. He was sort of halfway hanging out of the vehicle. One of the officers also saw several pill bottles on the sidewalk nearby and a large amount of money on the ground.

The police got him to wake up a little bit, but he seemed too intoxicated to answer any questions. He had slurred speech and did not appear to understand the police. The police were unable to get his name, and he needed assistance to exit the vehicle and sit on the ground. The defendant continued to mumble incoherently and state that he did not want to get shot.

The police were unable to get get his name and date of birth from him, so they asked him if they could search the car. He said yes. The police recovered blue pill bottles containing marijuana and $12,500. The officers also smelled marijuana coming from a backpack which was next to him on the ground. They searched the backpack and found a gun. The defendant did not have a license to carry and had prior convictions that prohibited him from carrying a gun, so the police arrested him and charged him with possession of drugs and guns.

The Motion to Suppress

The defendant moved to suppress the physical evidence. He argued that police should have obtained a search warrant before searching his backpack and that they lacked the probable cause and exigent circumstances necessary for a constitutional search. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and found the defendant guilty. It sentenced him to 4 - 8 years’ incarceration followed by 18 months’ probation. The defendant appealed.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Appeal

The Superior Court affirmed on appeal. The Court found that the officers did not need a search warrant because they were responding to an emergency. The defendant was incapacitated, incoherent, and may have been in the midst of a medical emergency. The police did not know who he was or what was going on, and he appeared to need help. Given that the police were trying to figure out who he was and what medical conditions he might have rather than looking for evidence, the police were performing under the community caretaking function.

This exception allows the police to conduct a search or seizure where necessary to help someone during an emergency. In other words, the police do not have to wait for someone to die of an overdose or other medical condition; they can perform basic searches in order to try to help someone.

Here, the Superior Court found that that was what the police were doing rather than searching for evidence. As they found the evidence while responding to the emergency, they did not have to ignore what was obviously incriminating.

Further, the Court concluded that the evidence was also subject to the search incident to arrest exception. Once they found the defendant with marijuana and a large sum of money, they had the right to finish searching him incident to arrest for possession of narcotics. Therefore, the Superior Court denied the appeal.

The Take Away

Ultimately, if you’re going to possess contraband and illegal weapons, it’s best to try to stay conscious and avoid needing medical attention while committing serious crimes. The case law is clear that the police can and probably should respond to help people with medical emergencies, and when the police are responding to an emergency in good faith, they usually do not have to obtain a search warrant. Exigent circumstances (a real emergency) are almost always an exception to the warrant requirement, and so the Superior Court denied the appeal. The defendant’s sentence will stand for now.

It was always unlikely that the court would grant a motion to suppress in this situation. Instead, the better defense was probably to argue that the contraband could have belonged to someone else. Perhaps the defendant’s companion, realizing that the defendant had become too intoxicated to function and that the police were on their way, took off and left the contraband behind rather than encounter the police and get arrested for possession themselves.

The Search Incident to Arrest Exception

Finally, there is some question regarding the search incident to arrest exception, however. The opinion does not make it totally clear where the bag was. If the bag was in fact outside of the car, then the exception likely applies. But if the bag was in the car, then that exception should not have applied. The search incident to arrest exception allows the police to search someone incident to arrest to make sure the person does not have any contraband or weapons, but it does not generally allow them to search a car for evidence.

The United States Supreme Court has held that it only allows a search of a motor vehicle where there is reason to believe the police will find more evidence of the offense of the arrest, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court requires a search warrant for the search of the car unless the contraband is in plain view. This case probably does not change that analysis much because the case is somewhat confusing and the court relied primarily on the exigent circumstances, but that issue is something to watch.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a conviction? Give us a call.

Criminal Appeals 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: Failure to Return Lost Cell Phone After Fight May Be Theft

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Griffith, affirming the defendant’s conviction for theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered where the defendant found the complainant’s cell phone on the ground after a fight and then threw it back on the ground instead of returning it.

The Facts of Griffith

The defendant and the complainant attended a Halloween party in York County. The complainant had a physical altercation with one of the defendant’s friends. The defendant and another person joined in, and they all fought the complainant. The fight ended, but later that night, another fight took place involving the complainant and one of the defendant’s family members at a different location. That fight also involved the defendant. That fight ended when the police came and arrested everyone.

The complainant eventually realized she had lost her iPhone. She called the phone, and the defendant answered. She called the phone again later, and no one answered. She called the defendant the next day through a social media app, and the defendant told her she was not getting the phone back, “it’s gone,” and “to press charges.” She then hung up. The complainant asked again if she could return the phone, and the defendant said, “no, it’s gone.” The Commonwealth played a recording of these calls in court.

The defendant testified in her own defense. She said that after the arrests for the second fight, she and her cousin found the ringing phone on the ground. At first, she thought it was hers because she and the complainant had the same phone. She picked it up, talked to the complainant, realized it was not her own phone, and threw it back on the ground. She had not seen it since. She did not feel responsible for the phone, but she did not think she had stolen it because she did not take it, keep it, or cause it to be on the ground outside.

The trial court convicted her of theft. The court sentenced her to one year of probation and restitution of $1,000 for the phone. The defendant appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the defendant argued that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence because she did not have an intent to deprive the complainant of the phone. She interacted with the phone when she heard it ringing and thought it might be her phone, but she had no duty to return the phone to the complainant and was permitted to put the phone back where she found it. She argued that leaving the phone where she found it was a reasonable measure to return the phone to its owner and she had no duty to help the complainant find her phone. She also did not do anything to conceal the phone or make it harder for the complainant to find it.

The Superior Court rejected this argument and affirmed the conviction. The theft statute provides:

A person who comes into control of property of another that he knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient is guilty of theft if, with the intent to deprive the owner thereof, he fails to take reasonable measures to restore the property to a person entitled to have it.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3924.

The court concluded that the defendant acted with the intent to deprive by putting the phone back on the ground. The court found intent both from the circumstances of the fight, the mean things the defendant said, and the fact that the defendant told the complainant to press charges. Similarly, the defendant’s actions were not reasonable. Instead of putting the phone somewhere safe, the defendant threw it back on the ground. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the conviction. One of the judges dissented, however, making it more likely that the Superior Court or Supreme Court will entertain additional appeals.

This case is concerning because it allows for criminal liability for a defendant who did not actually steal any property. The complainant lost her phone during a fight, the defendant was not responsible for it, and the defendant should not really have had any obligation to help the complainant recover her phone. The complainant also had access to the Find my iPhone application and could have tried to find it herself. Nonetheless, the court found that because the defendant picked up the phone, she had an obligation to return it. This creates a duty to act even for someone who did not cause the property to be lost. Hopefully, the defendant will pursue additional appeals.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Lawyers

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. 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: Trial Court Should Ask Jury to Determine Amount Stolen in Theft Case

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Seladones. In Seladones, the defendant challenged her sentence of one to 18 months’ incarceration for her conviction for theft by unlawful taking. The defendant argued that she could only be sentenced to the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor offense because the jury never specifically found that she had stolen any particular amount. The Superior Court agreed and reversed her judgment of sentence.

The Facts of Seladones

In Seladones, the complainant kept about $10,000 worth of currency and coins in her house. She was hospitalized with COVID, and the defendant agreed to go to the house to check on the complainant’s cats while she was in the hospital. The defendant had done that for the complainant on previous occasions without incident. Once the complainant was discharged from the hospital, she realized that her $10,000 was missing.

She called the police and told them that she thought the defendant probably stole the money. The police began investigating, and they interviewed the defendant. They lied to the defendant, telling her that the complainant did not want to see anyone prosecuted but just wanted someone to own up to the theft. Of course, that was not true, but the complainant confessed, and the officer promptly arrested her. The officer had been secretly wearing a microphone, so the confession was on tape.

Can the police lie to you?

It is important to remember that the police can lie to you but you cannot lie to them. In this case, the officer very clearly lied and said that she would not be arrested if she confessed. That was not a binding promise, and she was immediately arrested. The full audio-taped confession was used against her in court. If she had lied to the police, however, she could have potentially been charged with all sorts of offenses relating to such a lie.

The Criminal Prosecution

The Commonwealth charged the defendant with one count of theft by unlawful taking as a felony of the third degree. The defendant went to trial and argued that the confession was coerced. The jury rejected that argument and found her guilty.

At sentencing, the defendant argued that the court should grade the offense as a misdemeanor of the third degree because it had not asked the jury to find how much money the complainant stole. Theft by unlawful taking becomes a felony when someone steals more than $2,000, but it is a third degree misdemeanor when the Commonwealth fails to prove the amount stolen or the amount is under $50. The trial court rejected this argument, finding that she had been charged with theft as a felony of the third degree and had confessed to stealing far more than $50. The court sentenced her to one to 18 months’ incarceration, which is a sentence that would only be allowed for an offense more serious than a third degree misdemeanor. The defendant appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the Superior Court agreed with the defendant. She had been charged with and confessed to stealing far more than $50, but she had not agreed to stealing that amount in court. The jury verdict form did not contain any special interrogatory asking the jury to make a finding as to whether she stole at least $2,000. Theft by unlawful taking requires a theft of more than that amount in order for it to be a felony, and any fact which potentially increases the penalty for an offense must be found beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury. Because the jury never determined that she in fact stole the required amount for a felony of the third degree, the trial court erred in grading the charge as a felony and sentencing the defendant for a felony. The Court ruled that the trial court should have included a question on the jury verdict form as to whether the jury found that the defendant stole $2,000 or more. Because it did not, the offense had to be graded as a low level misdemeanor, and the defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing.

This is an interesting case because it shows that the judge may not usurp the role of the jury and decide the gradation of the defense no matter how strong the Commonwealth’s evidence was. Further, the rules of criminal procedure do not actually give the court authority to issue special interrogatories to a jury, and there is prior precedent suggesting that such interrogatories are disfavored. The use of interrogatories has become more prevalent in recent years due to some important decisions from the United States Supreme Court, but it is not totally clear that the rules in Pennsylvania actually authorize them. Nonetheless, this is a good decision for the defense. The jury must find any fact which potentially increases the sentence or other penalties for an offense.

Facing criminal charges or appealing? 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. 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: Prison Sentence Okay For Adult Charged With Crimes Committed Decade Ago When Juvenile

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Torres, upholding the defendant’s convictions and lengthy prison sentence for rape of a child and related charges even though the defendant committed the crimes while he was a juvenile himself. In this case, the Superior Court approved of a long jail sentence for a defendant who committed serious sex crimes when he was a juvenile but was not arrested and charged until years later when he was an adult.

Had the defendant been prosecuted when the crimes happened, he would have been prosecuted in family court and likely received a year or two in a treatment facility. But because he was not prosecuted until a decade later, he was charged an adult, and he received a sentence of 19 - 40 years’ incarceration. This is obviously an absurd result, and the defendant will hopefully appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Facts of Torres

Between June 2008 and March 2011, Torres lived with his mother, four of his younger half-siblings, and his maternal grandmother in Lancaster Township. During that period, he sexually abused three of his half-siblings; his half-sister and two half-brothers. At the time of the offense, the three children were between the ages of two-and-a-half and six years old, and Torres was between the ages of 13 to 15. He was often left in charge of his younger half siblings because their mother was working sixteen hour days to support their family.

The half-sister reported that Torres would make her go to his bedroom and digitally penetrate her vagina, force her to perform oral sex on him, force her to swallow his ejaculate, and force her to have sex with him. In May 2009, she told her mother, and her mother called the police. The half-sister was interviewed by Lancaster County Children’s Alliance, but she did not tell the interviewer about the abuse. The other half-siblings were not interviewed at the time, and no charges were filed.

Almost nine years later, in March 2018, the half-sister told her parents again that Torres sexually abused her in the past. After this report, Torres’ two younger half-brothers disclosed the abuse they suffered at the hands of Torres. The details are not necessary for reviewing the legal issues, but the abuse was unquestionably horrific.

Although Torres committed these crimes as a juvenile, the Commonwealth filed the charges in 2018 when Torres was 23 years old. Accordingly, prosecutors charged Torres as an adult instead of as a juvenile.

Procedural History

After the prosecution filed charges, Torres filed a motion to dismiss. He claimed that the Commonwealth acted in bad faith by failing to investigate the half-sister’s report and failing to interview the other children in 2009, which led to the adult charges instead of family court charges. He argued that he could not be charged in adult criminal court with offenses he committed as a juvenile and that he should be prosecuted in Family Court under the Juvenile Act. The trial court denied Torres’s motion in November 2020.

A jury convicted Torres of all the sexual offenses after a three-day trial that began on August 23, 2021. The probation department conducted a pre-sentence investigation. Torres appeared for sentencing in 2022, and the trial court sentenced Torres to 19 to 40 years’ incarceration even though he had committed these crimes as a juvenile.

Torres filed a post-sentence motion arguing that the “adult-based sentence” violated his constitutional rights given that the crimes were committed when he was a juvenile and the sentence would have focused on treatment and rehabilitation if he had been charged closer in time to when they occurred. The trial court denied the post-sentence motion, and he appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, Torres first asserted that the trial court violated his due process rights when it denied his motion to dismiss, arguing the nine-year gap between the police report and the filing of charges prejudiced him because he lost the ability to have the charges handled in juvenile court. Next, Torres claimed the adult-based punishment of 19-40 years in prison constituted cruel and unusual punishment because Torres was between the ages of 13 and 15 years old when the crimes were committed. Lastly, Torres claimed the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to an aggregate period of 19-40 years’ incarceration.

The Superior Court denied all of Torres’s claims.

In denying Torres’s first claim, the Superior Court based its decision on precedent set in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent 2023 decision in Commonwealth v. Armolt. There, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a 42-year-old-male who committed offenses when he was a juvenile should be tried in juvenile court because the Commonwealth’s bad faith in delaying the charges caused him to lose the benefits of juvenile court. The Supreme Court explained that no bad faith existed because, for the purposes of the Juvenile Act, a “child” is defined as someone under the age of 18 or someone under the age of 21 who committed an act of delinquency before reaching the age of 18 years. The Supreme Court found that the Juvenile Act only extends juvenile jurisdiction to those who committed an offense while under the age of 18 if they are prosecuted before they turn 21.

The Superior Court applied the Supreme Court’s reasoning to Torres’s case because he was between 13 and 15 when the offense occurred but 23 when charged, so the Juvenile Act did not apply to him. Because the Juvenile Act did not apply, the Superior Court approved of the trial court’s denial of Torres’s motion to dismiss appropriate.

The Superior Court also rejected his challenge to the sentence. The Superior Court reasoned that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not require strict proportionality between the crime committed and the sentence imposed. Instead, the Eighth Amendment forbids extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime. The Superior Court opined that most cases where cruel and unusual punishment has been found involved life sentences for juveniles tried as adults. The Court instead explained that Torres was sentenced to 19-40 years in prison and not a life sentence, making those cases inapplicable. Further, the Court decided that because the Juvenile Act did not apply, Torres was not entitled to any special sentencing benefits.

Finally, the Superior Court decided the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a long sentence. The Superior Court noted a sentencing judge has broad discretion because that judge is in the best position to “view the defendant’s character, displays of remorse, defiance, or indifference, and the overall effect and nature of the crime”. The Superior Court further explained that the sentencing court considers the crime’s effect on the victims and community as a whole along with the defendant’s prior record, age, personal characteristics, and potential for rehabilitation. Finally, the Court explained that when a trial court has the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report, its discretion should not usually be disturbed. Here, the sentencing judge had a pre-sentence investigation and conducted a full hearing. At Torres’s sentencing hearing, the trial court provided a full history of Torres’s life, paying close attention to his upbringing including, the sexual, physical, and emotional abuses Torres himself endured as a child. The Superior Court confirmed that the trial court considered all the proper sentencing factors and found the sentence appropriate, ultimately upholding the sentence.

The decision in Torres clearly illustrates just how much leeway and discretion the prosecution and trial courts have when it comes to criminal cases. Had the Commonwealth prosecuted Torres as a juvenile when the allegations first came to light, while he was under the age of 18, he certainly would have avoided an aggregate 19–40-year sentence and would likely not be under any court supervision at this time. The case also shows the enormous difference between being charged as a juvenile and being charged ten years later as an adult. When charged as a juvenile, the consequences are likely to focus on treatment. But when charged for something old as an adult, even if the defendant has stayed out of trouble for a decade or more, the defendant could face decades in prison. The system is clearly in need of major reform.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney 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. 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.