Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog
When can police conduct an inventory search of my car?
There are real limits to when police can search your car. Learn more about police inventory searches and when police may tow and search your car.
Police Often Need Search Warrants
As a general rule, police officers need a warrant to conduct a search of a person or a place. However, there are a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement, and one of them is the automobile exception. When the police want to search a car, they do not have to get a warrant. Instead, under both Pennsylvania and Federal case law, police officers need only probable cause to search a vehicle. Probable cause is the same standard which would be required for a magistrate or judge to issue a search warrant, but the police are not required to swear out an affidavit of probable cause and get a judicial officer to sign off on a search of a vehicle prior to conducting the search.
What Is Probable Cause?
Probable cause means that it is more likely than not that evidence of a crime will be found as a result of a search. For example, police officers will frequently claim that they smelled an odor of marijuana coming from a vehicle and therefore had probable cause to search the car. Under the government’s theory, the fact that the car smells like marijuana makes it more likely than not that marijuana will be found in the car if the police conduct a search, and therefore the police may search the car. If that search turns up a gun, drugs, or some other kind of contraband, then the prosecutor will argue that the search was justified because of the initial smell of marijuana. Of course, when the police claim they searched the car because of the smell of marijuana and then do not actually find any marijuana, it may be possible to challenge the search by filing a motion to suppress and arguing that the police testimony is not credible.
Other Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement
There are other ways that police officers will try to justify a car search. When police stop a car and have a vague hunch but are lacking in probable cause, they may attempt to use a traffic violation or motor vehicle code violation as the basis for the search by having the car towed so that they can do an inventory search. For example, if the police pull over a car with an expired registration, they may decide to tow the car instead of simply parking it on the side of the road so that they can conduct an inventory search of the vehicle. If they find some kind of contraband as a result of the inventory search, then they may bring criminal charges against the owner or operator of the car and argue that the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement justified the search and eliminated their need to obtain probable cause in a warrant. However, many of these decisions to tow and search cars are pretextual.
Limits on Police Inventory Searches of Cars
Fortunately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the police may not tow a car and conduct an inventory search simply because the owner or operator has committed a motor vehicle code violation which prevents the car from legally driving on the streets. This means that the police may not tow a car and conduct an inventory search due solely to the fact that a car has an expired registration, lacks insurance, or has some other physical or regulatory defect. Instead, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that in order to tow a car, the police must be able to show that immobilizing the car and leaving it where it was parked would pose some kind of threat to public safety.
Commonwealth v. Laganella
In Commonwealth v. Laganella, Harrisburg police pulled the defendant over for pulling into traffic without using a turn signal. Upon pulling the car over, the police officer learned that the vehicle was missing its emissions inspection sticker and that the defendant’s license had been suspended. Instead of simply issuing a ticket, the officer informed the defendant that the officer would have to tow the car. The defendant stated that there was no need for the car to be towed and that he could have a friend, who was a tow truck driver, pick the car up. Nonetheless, pursuant to department policy, the officer called a tow truck and searched the car, eventually finding drugs and a shotgun. The defendant, who had a prior felony conviction, was then charged with drug and gun charges, including VUFA Sec. 6105 (felon in possession of a firearm). After the trial court refused to suppress the gun, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to three to ten years in prison.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately reversed the trial court’s decision. The Court recognized that Pennsylvania law gives a police officer two options when the officer stops a vehicle operated by a driver whose license has been suspended: the officer may either immobilize the vehicle or tow the vehicle. If the officer is permitted to tow the vehicle, then the police may conduct an inventory search not for the purpose of finding contraband, but for securing the operator’s belongings for the benefit of both the operator and the police. However, Pennsylvania law provides that the officer may only tow the car when the vehicle poses public safety concerns warranting its towing and storage at an impound lot. Thus, if the vehicle can be safely parked or privately towed, then the vehicle will not pose public safety concerns which would warrant its towing. Further, when the police do tow a vehicle and conduct an inventory search, they must do so pursuant to a reasonable, standard policy of securing and inventorying the contents of a vehicle. The requirement that police have a standardized policy seeks to prevent police from using their ability to conduct an inventory search as a pretext.
In an earlier decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court had held that the police may conduct an inventory search regardless of whether they choose to merely immobilize the vehicle or actually tow it. However, in Laganella, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected this rule and held that police may only conduct an inventory search when they tow the vehicle. Because police may only tow the vehicle when there is a public safety concern, this creates a real limit on the ability of police to pretextually call a tow truck and conduct an inventory search. Thus, when the vehicle cannot be operated solely because the driver does not have a license or because the vehicle is missing its registration or insurance, the police may not tow the vehicle if the vehicle can be safely parked in the area where it was pulled over.
We Can Help With Criminal Charges in Pennsylvania and New Jersey
If you are facing criminal charges in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, we can help. We understand what you're going through, and we will use our skill and experience to get you through this. The Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC will fight for your rights at trial or on appeal. Our attorneys have successfully defended thousands of cases in Philadelphia and the surrounding counties, and we can help with all types of state and federal charges in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. If you believe the police may have illegally searched you or your car and found some kind of contraband, we may be able to file a motion to suppress. Call 267-225-2545 for a free criminal defense strategy session with one of our award-winning criminal defense lawyers.
Potential Defenses to Gun Charges
Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers for Gun Charges
We frequently help clients who are facing gun charges in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In this video, Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak Goldstein explains three of the most common defenses to illegal gun possession charges. As a general rule, gun charges are particularly serious. They are almost always felony charges. In New Jersey, possession of a firearm without a permit carries a mandatory minimum of three years in jail even for a defendant with no prior record. In Pennsylvania, although there is currently no mandatory minimum for illegal possession of a firearm, the state sentencing guidelines typically call for jail time even for a first offense. Finally, in the federal system, gun charges carry extremely severe mandatory minimums.
Fortunately, there are a number of potential defenses to firearms offenses. Three of the most common defenses include:
Philadelphia Gun Charges Lawyer Demetra Mehta
Possession - All gun charges require the prosecution to show that the defendant actually possessed or owned the firearm. Depending on the evidence, the prosecution may not be able to show that it was actually the defendant's gun or that the defendant ever possessed the gun. In cases where the defendant is arrested with the gun in a pocket or waistband, possession may not be the strongest defense.
However, in cases where the defendant is not in actual, physical possession of the gun, the prosecution may not be able to prove possession. In order to prove possession of a gun that is not physically on the defendant, the prosecution will rely on the doctrine of constructive possession. Constructive possession requires the government to show that the defendant both had access to the gun and the intent to control it. This mean that it is not nearly enough for the government to show only that the defendant was found near a gun. This issue frequently arises in cases in which a person is stopped in a vehicle which turns out to have a gun in it. Without some additional evidence that the defendant both knew of the gun and intended to control it, the mere discovery of the weapon by the police may not be sufficient for the government to obtain a conviction.Suppression - In any case involving a possessory offense, the prosecution must be able to show that the police found the evidence in a lawful manner. There are real limits on the authority of the police to stop individuals and search their belongings, including their cars and their homes. If the police were required to obtain a warrant prior to the search and did not do so, or they had no real basis for stopping and searching the defendant, then it may be possible to have the evidence suppressed and excluded from trial. In a gun case, if the police stopped and searched the defendant without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, the gun could be suppressed and the case could be dismissed.
Operability - In Pennsylvania, many gun offenses require the Commonwealth to send the gun to a lab for ballistics testing in order to prove that the gun was in fact a real gun and that it was operable. Both VUFA Sec. 6108 (possession of a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia) and VUFA Sec. 6106 (possession of a concealed firearm without a permit) only apply when the defendant possesses a real, operable gun. If the gun is actually a BB gun or air soft gun, or it cannot be made to fire without substantial repairs or alterations, then these criminal statutes may not apply. Therefore, the Commonwealth will have to prove that the gun was real and operable. In some cases where a complaining witness or police witness testifies that they saw the defendant with a gun but the gun was never fired and ultimately never recovered, the prosecution may not be able to prove that it was actually a real gun. If they cannot, then the defendant could be acquitted at trial by a judge or jury. This rule does not apply to the felon in possession of a firearm statute (VUFA Sec. 6105).
We Can Help With Weapons Offenses in Pennsylvania and New Jersey
Every case is different, and there are numerous firearms offenses and other weapons offenses in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The statutes which often make carrying guns without a license illegal are often more technical and complex than one would expect. Although gun crimes and illegal firearms possession charges are extremely serious, there are often defenses to these charges. Our Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers have the experience and skill to investigate your case, evaluate the evidence against you, and fight for the best possible result. Depending on your case, that could be a pre-trial dismissal, the suppression of incriminating evidence, an acquittal at trial, or a reduced sentence. Call 267-225-2545 for a free criminal defense strategy session with one of our Philadelphia gun lawyers.
PA Superior Court: If A Police Officer Says Stop, That’s A Stop
What makes an encounter with the police a stop?
The past few years have seen a number of questionable appellate opinions in which courts have suggested that a person may not necessarily be stopped for Fourth Amendment purposes even when a police officer orders the person to stop. Today, the Pennsylvania Superior Court clarified the obvious and reiterated what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already found: when a police officer says stop, it’s a stop. In Commonwealth v. Morrison, the Court ordered the suppression of a firearm, finding that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave after being ordered by police to stop.
Commonwealth v. Morrison
In Morrison, the defendant was arrested and charged with various gun charges, including VUFA § 6105 (persons not to possess firearms), VUFA § 6106 (carrying a concealed firearm without a permit), and VUFA § 6108 (carrying a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia). The defendant’s arrest stemmed from an encounter with Philadelphia police officers which took place in January 2015. The defendant moved to suppress the gun, arguing that police did not observe the gun in plain view until he had been stopped and detained without reasonable suspicion. At the suppression hearing, officers testified that they were on patrol in Philadelphia in police uniforms and a marked patrol car. At around 8 pm, they received a radio call from an unknown source which indicated that a nearby store had been robbed at gun point. The radio call described the robbers as two black males wearing black hoodies, blue jeans, and masks.
Five minutes later, the officers saw the defendant and another gentleman walking about five blocks away from where the robbery occurred. Although the defendant was a black male in a black hoodie, the defendant was not wearing the clothing described in the radio call. Instead of wearing blue jeans, he was wearing gray sweatpants. Nonetheless, the officers slowly approached the two men, stopped the police car about five feet away from them, and got out of the car.
After getting out of the car, one of the officers told the men to stop. The man who was walking with the defendant stopped, but the defendant did not. He appeared nervous, turned his back to the police car, and slowly walked away from the officers. The other police officer repeated the command to stop, and the defendant finally stopped. Notably, the defendant never attempted to run. Once he stopped, the officers ordered him to take his hands out of his pockets. The defendant did so, and the officers soon noticed the handle of a black handgun conveniently sticking out of the his pocket. The officers also left the information that the defendant supposedly turned and walked away from them out of the various police reports that they prepared.
Although the defendant did not match the flash description, the officers left key details out of the police reports, and the information provided by the radio call was entirely anonymous and unconfirmed, the trial court denied the motion to suppress the firearm. The court concluded that the interaction between the officers and the defendant did not rise to the level of a “stop.” Instead, the interaction was only a mere encounter. Further, the trial court concluded that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant because he partially matched the description in the anonymous radio call, appeared nervous, and attempted to walk away.
Standards for Police Encounters
On appeal, the Superior Court reversed. The court started by noting that there are three types of police encounters. The first of these is a “mere encounter” (or request for information) which need not be supported by any level of suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop or respond. The second, an “investigative detention” must be supported by reasonable suspicion; it subjects a suspect to a stop and period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of arrest. An investigative detention is considered a stop, and it is commonly referred to as a Terry stop. Finally, an arrest or “custodial detention” must be supported by probable cause.
An investigative detention is less than the equivalent of an arrest, but it occurs when police take action which would make a reasonable person not feel free to leave. Although previous Superior Court opinions have implicitly suggested that an encounter may not be a stop solely because the police say “stop,” the Court in Morrison recognized the obvious: when the police tell someone to stop, no reasonable person in that position would feel as though they were free to leave. Accordingly, the defendant was clearly stopped as soon as uniformed, armed officers exited the vehicle and told the defendant to stop.
Because the defendant was stopped for Fourth Amendment purposes and subjected to an investigative detention, the police were required to have reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity. However, the Court found that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion because nervousness and slowly walking away from the police is not indicative of criminal activity. Further, the radio call did not provide the officers with reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant and recover the gun because the radio call was anonymous, unconfirmed, and lacking in detail, and the defendant did not even match the description in the call. The call indicated that the perpetrators of the alleged robbery were wearing jeans, and the defendant was wearing sweatpants. Therefore, the officers had stopped the defendant without reasonable suspicion prior to seeing the gun, making the gun the fruit of the poisonous tree. Accordingly, the Superior Court reversed the decision of the trial court and ordered that the gun be suppressed and excluded from evidence.
The Consequences Of An Illegal Stop
It goes without saying that courts are reluctant to suppress guns. However, when the police stop or search someone illegally, the Fourth Amendment requires that the evidence be suppressed, meaning that it may not be used at trial. Morrison reaffirms that in order to convict a defendant of possessing contraband like drugs or a gun, the prosecution must be able to show that the evidence was obtained pursuant to a legal search and seizure. Further, Morrison is important because it clarifies that a person is stopped when the police begin issuing commands like “stop” which would make a reasonable person feel that he or she was not free to leave.
Award-Winning Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers
If you are facing criminal charges, we can help. Our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended clients against gun charges, drug charges, and other possession of contraband cases in preliminary hearings, pre-trial motions to suppress, and at trial. Call 267-225-2545 for a complimentary 15-minute criminal defense strategy session with one of our award-winning defense attorneys.
Do Police Need A Warrant To Search A Hotel Room?
Police Searches of Hotel Rooms and Other Rented Spaces
Under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, law enforcement officers need a search warrant anytime they want to search a suspect's private residence with few exceptions. If the police do not obtain a warrant prior to conducting the search of a home, then the owner of the home and any guests who are staying there could potentially have any incriminating evidence which was found in the search suppressed and excluded from trial. This same basic rule requiring police to get a search warrant also applies when police want to search a hotel room. If you are a guest in a hotel, the police cannot search your room without a search warrant. Unfortunately for the defendant in Commonwealth v. Williams, the Superior Court held that the defendant has the burden at the Motion to Suppress hearing of showing that the defendant actually rented or was staying in the hotel room.
Commonwealth v. Williams
In Williams, the defendant was charged with three counts of Possession with the Intent to Deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and two counts of possession of a controlled substance. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence because police searched the hotel room in which the drugs were recovered without a search warrant. At the motions hearing, the prosecution established that police officers in Erie, Pennsylvania responded to a 911 call for a shooting on March 18, 2016 at the defendant's home. Once there, police found a dead pit bull, lots of blood, and a man who had been shot in the leg and face. Police did not find any other victims or the shooter, so they began interviewing the neighbors. One neighbor informed police that the defendant lived in the first floor apartment at that location, and he had seen one of the defendant's vehicles leaving the area around the time of the shooting. The officer looked in the window of the apartment and did not see anyone home, so he radioed for the car to be stopped.
Other officers stopped the defendant in the car which the neighbor had seen. Once stopped, the defendant told police that he had been staying in a nearby a hotel with a friend because of ongoing domestic issues with his girlfriend. He showed the officer a key card for a hotel room, and he told the officer that the key was for room 111. He also told the officer that he was in room 111 at the time of the shooting.
Following this conversation, officers removed the defendant from the vehicle and frisked him. They also frisked the passenger and recovered a gun. At some point, after the conversation had occurred, officers also searched the car for weapons, and during this search, they found that the defendant had taken the hotel key card from his wallet and discarded it in the vehicle. Williams had apparently dropped the card between the driver's side seat and the center console of the vehicle, so the police took it.
Based on this information, an officer went to room 111 and knocked on the door. When no one answered, the officer went to the front desk and spoke with hotel management. Management informed the officer that the key card was not for room 111 and that the card was actually for room 231. However, the employee did not know who had actually rented room 231. Further, the employee stated that the hotel did not have surveillance footage which would show who had rented the room.
Apparently concerned that another shooting victim might be in room 231, the officer went and knocked on the door for that room. When no one answered, the officer decided that it was an emergency. Instead of waiting for a search warrant, he used the key card and opened the door. The officer immediately smelled marijuana and found drugs and drug paraphernalia in the room. He did a quick check of the room for shooting victims, and then he obtained a search warrant to recover the drugs and paraphernalia.
For reasons which are not explained in the Court's opinion, the defense did not challenge the stop and search of the defendant's vehicle or subsequent seizure of the room key. Instead, the defense argued that the drugs in the hotel room should be suppressed because the police were required to obtain a search warrant prior to entering the room. The Commonwealth responded with two arguments. First, the Commonwealth aruged that the defendant failed to establish that Williams had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room because there was insufficient evidence to show that he had rented or was staying in the room. Second, the Commonwealth argued that the exigent circumstances surrounding the shooting justified the police decision to enter the room without a search warrant because there could have been another victim who needed medical assistance in the hotel room.
The Exigent Circumstances Exception to the Warrant Requirement
The exigent circumstances doctrine permits law enforcement to enter a house without a warrant during a true emergency. If police reasonably believe that someone is dying inside a home, then the police do not have to wait for a search warrant before entering the home and rendering aid. Of course, if they find something incriminating in plain view during their attempts to render aid, then that evidence wil be admissible at trial. This issue often comes up in cases involving burglary alarms. If a burglary alarm goes off and police do not find anyone at the scene when they arrive to investigate, they may decide to enter the home without a warrant and check for burglars. If they find your drugs and guns inside the house while looking for burglars, it will often be difficult to have that evidence suppressed despite the absence of a search warrant.
The trial court agreed with the defense and granted the Motion to Suppress. The trial court found that police were required to obtain a search warrant prior to entering the hotel room because a guest in a hotel room has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room. Further, the court found that the exigent circusmtances exception to the warrant requirement did not apply as police had no real basis for believing another shooting victim to be in the room. Therefore, the court found that even though the drugs were in plain view once police entered the room, the drugs should be suppressed because police only saw the drugs because they illegally entered the room without a search warrant.
The Superior Court disagreed and reversed the Order granting the Motion to Suppress. The Court found that the defendant failed to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room. The defendant presented no witnesses, so the Commonwealth's evidence was essentially uncontradicted. Under Pennsylvania law, a defendant who is charged with a possessory offense like Possession of a Controlled Substance has automatic standing; this means that the defendant may always move for the suppression of the items sized. However, in addition to having standing, a defendant who moves to suppress evidence must also have had a reasonable expectation of privacy which was violated by some sort of law enforcement action. If the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched, then it does not matter if the police followed the rules. For example, if the police illegally search your house and find evidence which they wish to use against me, then I would not be able to successfully have the evidence suppressed because I did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your house. If they wanted to use the evidence against you, you would be able to win a Motion to Suppress because it was your house, but I would be out of luck.
What is a reasonable expectation of privacy?
The Court noted that a reasonable expectation of privacy exists when an individual exhibits an actual or subjective expectation of privacy and that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Courts must evaluate the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether a defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the test does not depend solely on the subjective intent or belief of the defendant. Further, prior case law established that although it is the Commonwealth's burden to prove that evidence was obtained legally at a Motion to Suppress hearing, the burden remains on the defendant to show a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Do the Police Need a Warrant to Search a Hotel Room?
Pennsylvania law is very clear that a hotel room deserves just as much protection as a private home or office. A registered hotel guest enjoys a legitimate expectation of privacy in a hotel room during the period of time in which the room rental remains valid. However, the expectation ceases to be reasonable after the rental period has ended and/or the guest's right to occupancy has lapsed. A person also does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a room in which they are not staying.
Here, the defendant would have been in much better shape for the Motion to Suppress had he testified that he rented that particular hotel room and believed it to be private. However, he did not do so. Instead, he told police that he was staying in a different hotel room, and he actually tried to discard the key to the room. Further, when police spoke with hotel employees, they were told that the hotel did not know who had rented the room and also did not have any video surveillance which would show defendant staying in that room. Accordingly, the only evidence in the record was that defendant had a key to a room in which he did not admit to staying. Therefore, the Superior Court found that the defendant failed to establish that it was his room and correspondingly that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room. Police were not required to obtain a warrant prior to the search, so the Court did not even reach the issue of whether emergency circumstances justified the warrantless search.
The Williams opinion, although intellectually dishonest, illustrates the dangers of relying on the Commonwealth's evidence to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy and constitutional violation on the part of law enforcement. It also shows how unforgiving Pennsylvania's reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine can be compared to New Jersey's much more relaxed standard. Of course, it is obvious from the record that the room had been rented by Williams. A court could have easily inferred, as the trial court did, that it was his room. He had the key, he lied about which room he had rented because he knew there were lots of drugs in it, and the police only searched it because they believed it was connected to him. Indeed, if the prosecution did not believe that it was his room, then they would not have charged him with Possession. It is a certainty that the prosecution will not be withdrawing the charges despite arguing that it was not Williams' room on appeal.
The Pros and Cons of Testifying as a Defendant in a Criminal Case
Nonetheless, once Williams claimed to have been staying in a different room, he probably needed to testify at the Motion to Suppress hearing in order to establish that it was his room. If he had testified that it was his room, then the Court would not have been able to find that he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy therein. There is often a great deal of reluctance to call criminal defendants to testify for fear that they will say something incriminating or open the door to some other type of incriminating evidence which would have been otherwise inadmissible. Additionally, if the defendant has prior convictions for certain crimes of dishonesty (burglary, robbery, theft, etc.), then the fact of those convictions may become admissible when the defendant testifies. However, in some cases, it is simply necessary. Here, Williams likely should have testified that it was his room. This is particularly true because the defendant's testimony during a Motion to Suppress hearing may not be used against the defendant at trial even if the Motion is denied unless the defendant testifies to something inconsistent at trial. Therefore, Williams had little to lose by conclusively establishing that it was his room.
Philadelphia Criminal Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak T. Goldstein
Award-Winning Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers
As always, if you are facing criminal charges, we can help. Our Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers have won motions to suppress drugs, guns, and other contraband in cases involving car searches, house searches, and searches of hotel rooms. We can help at both the trial and appellate level. Call 267-225-2545 for a free criminal defense strategy session.