PA Superior Court: If Police Have Probable Cause to Search a Car, They May Search All Containers In the Car

Police May Search Bags and Purses in a Car If They Have Probable Cause to Search the Car

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has just decided the case of Commonwealth v. Runyan, 2017 PA Super 114. In Runyan, the Commonwealth sought reversal of a suppression order which found that police could not automatically search the purse of a passenger in an automobile even where police had probable cause to search the car itself. The Superior Court held that if police have probable cause to search a car, they may search all containers within the car in which they could reasonably expect to find the object of their search. Accordingly, police in Pennsylvania no longer need a search warrant in order to search bags or other containers in a car if they have probable cause for the search of the car. This is true regardless of whether there is any link between the container being searched and the driver of the car. In other words, police may search the purses and luggage of passengers in the car.  

The Car Search

In Runyan, local police officers in Mercer County observed a sedan parked with four occupants in it. Police observed the sedan in an area that the officers described as a high crime, high drug area. The vehicle was parked there late at night, so officers approached the vehicle to see what was going on.

As one of the officers approached the vehicle, he smelled the door of burnt marijuana coming from the area around the vehicle. When he walked up to the passenger side door, he could see a small bag of marijuana on the back seat passenger side floor. Naturally, the officer mentioned the bag of marijuana to the occupants of the car. The driver then attempted to crawl from the front of the car into the back seat and exit the car. At that point, the police officers asked everyone to get out of the car, handcuffed each occupant of the car, and began searching the vehicle.

Upon searching the car, the officer recovered the bag of marijuana which he had seen on the floor. Additionally, he found a number of purses in the car, and the officer searched those purposes. In one of the purses, he found a spoon, syringe, and crack pipe. The spoon had white residue on it, so the officer concluded that he had found drug paraphernalia. In another purse, the officer found a spoon with white residue on it and a number of syringes. That purse, unfortunately, also had the identification card for the defendant, Ms. Runyan.

Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

Based on the discovery of the drug paraphernalia in the purse, the officers arrested Ms. Runyan and charged her with possession of drug paraphernalia. Ms. Runyan moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that although police may have had probable cause to search the car, they were required to and did not have independent probable cause to search her purse. The trial court agreed and granted the motion to suppress. The court found that the “warrantless search of purses of passengers of a vehicle is not justified by the search incident to arrest exception.”

Police May Search A Car Without A Warrant – But They Must Have Probable Cause

The Commonwealth appealed, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court’s order suppressing the drug paraphernalia. The Superior Court cited the recent case of Commonwealth v. Gary in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that police do not need a warrant to search an automobile. Instead, because of the inherent movability of a vehicle and possibility that evidence could be lost during the delay inherent in obtaining a warrant, police may search an automobile whenever they have probable cause to do so. Probable cause means that it is more likely than not that the police will find some sort of contraband or evidence in the car. Obviously, the odor of marijuana, bag of marijuana in plain view, driver’s attempt to flee from the back of the car, and the officer’s extensive experience in making drug and marijuana arrests all combined to establish probable cause that there would be some kind of drugs or more marijuana in the vehicle. Therefore, the Superior Court held that officers could search any container in the car in which the contraband could be concealed, including Ms. Runyan’s purse.

The United States Supreme Court has already held that police may search any containers within a car when police have probable cause to do so. Therefore, following the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision, Pennsylvania and federal courts will now apply the same standard in automobile search cases. Police need only probable cause in order to search any container within the car.

There Are Defenses in Car Search Cases

Despite the Superior Court’s ruling, there are often still defenses in cases involving searches of cars. Although police may search the car and the containers therein when they have probable cause, it is often possible to challenge both the initial stop of the vehicle and whether the police really had the probable cause to conduct the search. First, depending on the type of stop, police must have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to actually conduct a stop of a vehicle. If the defense can show that the police stopped the car arbitrarily or pretextually, it may be possible to have all of the results of the stop suppressed. Second, if the police did not actually have probable cause to search the car, then the results of the illegal search would be suppressed. Here, police saw drugs in plain view and the driver attempted to flee, but in many cases, the evidence of contraband is not so obvious and can be challenged. Finally, many drug possession and gun possession cases raise issues of constructive possession. In this case, Ms. Runyan made the foolish decision to store her identification card with her drug paraphernalia. However, in most cases, people do not do that. Had her ID not been with the contraband, then police would have had a difficult time establishing to whom the purse belonged without some kind of statement.  

A Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Can Help With Drug Cases  

Zak T. Goldstein, Esq - Philadelphia Drug Lawyer

The Philadelphia Criminal Defense and Drug Defense Lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC can help with drug and gun cases in Philadelphia. We have litigated and won countless motions to suppress and possession cases involving vehicle searches and other searches in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Our lawyers will work closely with you to build the strongest possible defense to your charges. Call 267-225-2545 for a complimentary, 15-minute criminal defense strategy session.  

PA Superior Court Rejects Search Warrant Issued on Word of Unproven Confidential Informant

The Use of Confidential Informants in Drug Cases

It is not a secret that the police often use confidential informants in the investigation of narcotics offenses. However, even when police make arrests and prosecutors bring charges based on evidence obtained by confidential informants, the identity of the confidential informant and extent to which police have used the CI in the past often remain a secret. The use of confidential informants is particularly prone to abuse. In cases where courts do not require prosectors to provide information about the identity of the confidential informant and proof of the CI's reliability, the defense is left with few options for challenging or verifying the testimony of the police officer about the evidence allegedly obtained by the CI.

Instead, officers are routinely permitted to testify, often without specifics, that the confidential informant has provided reliable information in the past and should therefore be trusted now. Likewise, despite the constitutional right to cross-examine one’s accusers in a criminal case afforded by the Confrontation Clause, Pennsylvania courts have increasingly accepted police and prosecution arguments that revealing the identity of the confidential informant in any case would jeopardize the safety of the confidential informant. Therefore, courts often deny defense attempts to learn any information about the confidential informant and deny motions to reveal the CI's identity. 

Confidential Informants Must Be Reliable In Order to Provide Probable Cause

In Commonwealth v. Charles Manuel (likely no relation to the World Series-winning Phillies manager), the Pennsylvania Superior Court appears to have reached its limit. In many cases, judges take an officer’s word for it on whether the CI has been reliable and whether the CI’s safety would be jeopardized by disclosure to the defense. In Manuel, the Superior Court held that the fact that the CI provided information on one prior occasion which led to an arrest did not sufficiently establish that the CI was reliable enough for police to obtain a search warrant based on the CI’s word alone.

In Manuel, police obtained a search warrant for the defendant’s house based solely on the word of a confidential informant. The confidential informant told officers that he or she had been to the defendant’s house and observed a marijuana grow operation. Police had also used the CI on one prior occasion, and the prior use of the CI led to an arrest. At the time of the investigation, however, the charges stemming from the prior investigation were still pending and had not been adjudicated. Accordingly, officers could not establish that the CI’s prior information was reliable enough to lead to an actual conviction. Finally, officers asserted that they had corroborated the CI's allegations because the CI told the officers the names of the occupants of the house. 

After officers checked real estate records and confirmed that the CI had correctly identified the owner of the house, officers applied for a search warrant. In the warrant, the officers indicated that the CI was reliable because the CI’s prior information had led to an arrest and that the public records check provided corroboration of the CI’s allegation that officers would find a grow operation. Because officers wrote that the CI observed the alleged marijuana grow operation, a magistrate granted a search warrant for the property. Of course, when officers executed the search warrant, they did find a marijuana grow operation. The trial judge denied the ensuing motion to suppress, and the defendants were convicted of Possession with the Intent to Deliver marijuana.

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the defendants’ convictions. The Court ruled that the trial judge should have granted the motion to suppress because the warrant was lacking in probable cause. In many cases, the word of a confidential informant may be enough to obtain a search warrant. The court noted, for example, that an informant’s tip may constitute probable cause where police independently corroborate the tip, or where the informant has provided accurate information of criminal activity in the past, or where the informant himself participated in the criminal activity. However, there must be some real basis for believing the CI’s information to be reliable. In many cases, the police will use the CI to conduct controlled buys or conduct some other investigation of the defendant in order to corroborate the CI’s allegations. Once the allegations have been corroborated, the officers may obtain a valid search warrant.

Here, however, the officers simply failed to corroborate the allegations of the confidential informant, and there was nothing to suggest that the CI was in fact reliable. Although there is no magic number of arrests or convictions for which a CI must have previously provided information in order to be deemed reliable, it is clear that one prior arrest is not enough. The court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances, but in the absence of some corroboration, one prior arrest is likely insufficient. Because the information from the CI failed to establish probable cause, the warrant was defective. Accordingly, the Superior Court reversed the defendants’ convictions and the trial court’s ruling denying the motion to suppress.

Our Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Can Help With Drug Charges

Goldstein Mehta LLC - Philadelphia Drug Lawyers

If you or a loved one are under investigation or facing drug charges, we can help. Contact the Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC today. Our defense attorneys have extensive experience fighting drug charges in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have obtained successful results in cases involving alleged observed drug transactions, expert witnesses, and controlled buys involving confidential informants. Call 267-225-2545 for a free, 15-minute criminal defense strategy session.

---

Contact a Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Today

Can the police search a guest in a home when executing a search warrant?

Can The Police Search Me If I Am A Visitor In A House? 

A search warrant for a particular location gives the police broad authority to search within that location for evidence of contraband like drugs, guns, and other incriminating items. There are, of course, limits, and in Pennsylvania, even searches which are supported by a warrant may be subject to challenge with a Motion to Suppress. In addition to the possibility of attacking the legality of the warrant itself, there may be other grounds for suppressing the results of a search even if the police had a warrant in cases where the police officers exceed the scope of the warrant.

For example, even when the police have a search warrant, the authority to search is generally limited to areas within the property where the police could reasonably expect that the evidence being sought could be found. For example, if the police are looking for guns, then they could not search a container which is too small to contain a gun. Likewise, the police probably could not search the contents of your computer in order to find a gun unless the search warrant specifically gives them authority to analyze the data on the computer.

Searches of Visitors Pursuant to a Search Warrant for the House

Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esq.

An important issue arises when there are guests present in a home when the police show up to execute a search warrant. As a general rule, under Pennsylvania law, the police may not search the physical person and clothing of the people in the home unless those people are identified in the warrant or the police have other independent probable cause to arrest those people and conduct a search incident to arrest. This means that if the police have a search warrant for the house, and you happen to merely be there when the police show up to execute the warrant, then the police may not search you and the clothing that you are wearing merely because they have a warrant for the house. If you are described in the warrant or they have existing probable cause to arrest you, then they could search you, but if you happen to merely be a guest in a property which is the target of a search warrant, the police do not have the authority to search you without more than just the warrant.

Although the Pennsylvania Constitution provides strong protections to visitors in a home even during the execution of a search warrant, it is important to note that the standard is different in federal court because the federal courts have determined that police may detain and potentially search everyone in a home during the execution of a search warrant for officer safety purposes.

Searches of Clothing and Bags in the House when Police Have a Warrant  

The issue becomes trickier when there are items of clothing or bags which could contain the contraband being sought which are not physically on the person in the house. This was the situation which arose on appeal in a recent case in the Superior Court, Commonwealth v. Petty. In Petty, the officers were executing a search warrant for drugs in a house in Philadelphia. Mr. Petty happened to be a guest in the house, and when police entered the house, Petty was in bed in the rear bedroom. Unfortunately for Mr. Petty, he did not have his pants on. Police ordered Petty out of the bed, and as Petty complied and tried to put on his pants, which had been lying on the floor, police first took the pants before Mr. Petty could pick them up, and the police searched them, recovering drugs.

Petty’s criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the drugs, alleging that the police in effect had searched his person because the police knew that the pants were his. Because police had no prior information on Petty, this search would have exceeded the scope of the warrant because Petty was not identified in the warrant. Therefore, police did not have authority to search Mr. Petty or his clothing.

The Philadelphia Municipal Court granted the motion to suppress, but unfortunately for Mr. Petty, the Superior Court reversed. The Superior Court concluded that the search was permissible because police officers who are executing a search warrant have the authority to search any container which could contain contraband. The court noted:

Holding that clothing removed from a person and placed nearby is an extension of his person rather than simply an article of personal property on the premises interjects an element . . . that requires police to guess whether items in proximity to a person not identified in a warrant would soon be used by that person. Because Appellee did not physically possess the pants when officers found them, police were authorized to search them.

Our Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers offer a 15-minute, complimentary criminal defense strategy session. We know that picking up the phone and calling an attorney can be intimidating, so in this video, Attorney Goldstein explains what you can expect when you call us. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with one of our criminal defense lawyers.

Although Petty lost on appeal, the Superior Court’s decision reaffirms the holding that police may not search guests in a home merely because they have a warrant to search that home. As always, if you are facing criminal charges, it is critical that you hire a criminal defense attorney who focuses his or her practice on criminal law and stays on top of new developments in the law. If you are facing charges in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, call 267-225-2545 for a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session with one of our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers.

Oops. The police lost the video. What now?

What Happens When The Police Lose the Evidence? 

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

Many burglars are not caught at the scene of the crime. Although sometimes the police may interrupt a burglary in progress and catch the burglar inside the property, it is probably more common for the property owner to arrive home or to work and see the obvious signs that the place has been burglarized – items are missing, windows are smashed, and the place is a mess. That person will call the police, and if the police conduct an investigation, they may make an arrest and charge someone with burglary based on some combination of eyewitness testimony from a bystander or neighbor, video surveillance, forensic evidence like DNA or fingerprints, and possession of the proceeds of the crime.

When the police bring burglary charges later based on some of the above evidence, there are several ways that they could end up arresting the wrong person and charging him or her with this serious felony. For example, the eyewitness testimony could turn out to be faulty; although they may seem certain, the witness may not have had such a great view. Or they may be trying to get back at someone who has wronged them. The fingerprint evidence could be misleading; the fingerprints could have been there for some other reason, or the subjective fingerprint analysis of the lab may be incorrect.

Assuming the video is clear enough to really make out a person’s face, then video surveillance seems like a pretty safe bet. If the video shows the defendant committing the burglary clear as day, then it is likely going to be a tough case for us. That's why most people would probably agree that if the police or the owner of the store have a video of the burglary, they should have to preserve the video so that the defendant can see it when deciding whether to plead guilty or take the case to trial and so that the judge or jury can see that it was actually the defendant who committed the burglary.

Unfortunately, the Superior Court disagrees about what happens when evidence is lost. In Commonwealth v. Williams, No. 526 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016), the appellate Court ruled that the trial court erred in precluding a police officer from testifying as to what he saw on a surveillance video that was later accidentally destroyed by the store-owner. In Williams, the prosecution charged the defendant with burglarizing a pizza shop. Although no one was present at the time, store video cameras allegedly caught the defendant committing the burglary. When the store owner showed the video to one of the responding police officers, the officer apparently recognized the defendant on the video and obtained a warrant for his arrest. The officer also instructed the store owner to take steps to make a copy of the video for the police.

By the time the preliminary hearing arrived, the video was lost. The store owner testified that he had accidently destroyed all of the video while attempting to make a copy of it. Nonetheless, the officer was permitted to testify that he saw the defendant on the video at the preliminary hearing, and the defendant was held for court. As the case approached trial, the defense filed a motion to suppress the contents of the video and to preclude the officer from describing the missing video at trial. The trial court conducted a hearing. Despite concluding that the destruction of the video was indeed an accident, the trial court issued an order precluding the officer from testifying that it was the defendant on the video of the burglary. The Commonwealth, without any evidence other than the video it had lost, opted to take an appeal to the Superior Court.

Two Standards for the Destruction of Evidence (Spoliation of Evidence in a Criminal Case)

The Superior Court reversed. The Superior Court recognized that under existing case law, there are two different frameworks for analyzing whether a witness may testify about a description of lost, destroyed or missing evidence at trial. When there is some reason to believe that the evidence is exculpatory, meaning it would show the defendant’s innocence, then the Commonwealth simply may not reference the missing evidence. The defendant does not have to show that the prosecution or police acted in bad faith in failing to secure the evidence.

Alternatively, when the evidence is not materially exculpatory but is instead “potentially useful,” the defendant must show that the police actually acted in bad faith in failing to secure or destroying the video. This is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, standard to meet. The police officers will almost always be able to produce some reasonable, harmless reason for why the evidence was accidentally destroyed. The defense will have very little ability to counteract that. Further, the destroyed evidence is often going to end up in this second category of “potentially useful.” It is difficult for the defendant to prove or even allege that the video would have been materially exculpatory because the defense has never seen it!  

Because the Williams defendant alleged only that the video may have been “potentially useful,” the Superior Court reversed the trial court’s order suppressing the officer’s testimony and remanded the case for further proceedings (presumably in which the officer may testify that he saw the defendant, clear as day, commit a burglary). This leaves the defendant with very little ability to challenge the officer’s testimony. After all, how can the defendant accuse the officer of lying or making a mistake when the defense has not seen the video. Unfortunately, while this decision may seem shocking, this case mostly represents a continuation of what the law has traditionally been in Pennsylvania in regards to destruction of evidence.   

Protecting the Record for Appeal 

Barring a quick and successful appeal, there are two key takeaways from this case: the first is that if you are facing criminal charges, you need a criminal lawyer who knows the law well enough to litigate these motions as more than just an appeal to the sense of fairness of the trial judge. I suspect that even the Superior Court judges who decided this opinion would agree that this is not really fair as we think about it in a non-legal sense. But it is the law that certain standards must be met in order to justify an order suppressing evidence. Therefore, you need a criminal lawyer who will work to establish a record that will either show that the video would have in fact been materially exculpatory or that the police showed bad faith in failing to preserve it. I have not seen the record in this case, and the lawyers here certainly may have tried to do that and simply been unable to do so for reasons beyond their control. Nonetheless, it is critical that you hire a lawyer who knows and will research the law, the appropriate standards and burdens of proof, and who is truly invested in your case.

If You Are Under Investigation or Have Been Charged, Do Not Delay 

Second, Williams illustrates the importance of hiring a criminal defense lawyer immediately when you are facing criminal charges. Even if you are innocent and the police have arrested the wrong person, you cannot just sit back and assume that the store will have video surveillance footage that will exonerate you. Many times, the cameras in the store are not real or do not actually work. In other instances, the store owner or police will destroy the footage through negligence, recklessness, or in rare instances, even intentionally. In Philadelphia court, it is common for cases to be dismissed where the Commonwealth or its witnesses lose evidence even by accident. But the Superior Court does not always uphold these rulings on appeal. That is why you need a criminal lawyer who can start finding exculpatory evidence for you instead of one who will just argue that the Commonwealth’s evidence is not enough.   

Goldstein Mehta LLC: Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers for Burglary Charges and Other Serious Felonies 

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges, you need one of our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers to take your case seriously and conduct a serious investigation. If there is the possibility of finding video from other cameras on the block or that look out from neighboring stores, we have investigators who can get out there immediately and start looking. If there is the possibility of finding witnesses who the police did not have the time to speak with or interest in interviewing, we can get out there and find them. You need a criminal defense lawyer who has the resources to get someone out there to start investigating your case to find the evidence that will show that you didn’t do it. If you are facing criminal charges in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, the Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC can help. Call 267-225-2545 for a complimentary 15-minute criminal defense strategy session.