K9 Searches | When Can Police Use Drug Sniffing Dogs in PA?

Both the Philadelphia Police Department and the Pennsylvania State Police frequently use trained canines to detect drugs and combat drug trafficking. When the police find drugs based on the alert of a drug sniffing dog, there are often issues as to whether the police had the right to conduct the search in the first place. In some cases, it may be possible to challenge the search and seek suppression of the evidence if the police conducted the canine search without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Pennsylvania and Federal law differ on the level of suspicion which police must have in order to conduct a K9 search. However, both federal and state law provide substantial protections to individuals from unlawful searches.

Pennsylvania Law on Drug Detection Dogs  

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that a canine search constitutes a search under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Therefore, if police conduct a canine sniff without the required level of suspicion, the results of the search could be suppressed.

Canine Sniffs of the Person

Under Pennsylvania law, police are required to have different levels of suspicion depending on whether the search was of a person or a car. When the police want to use a drug sniffing dog to detect whether a person has drugs on them, the police are required to have probable cause for the search. In Commonwealth v. Martin, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized that “an invasion of one’s person is, in the usual case, a more severe intrusion on one’s privacy interest than an invasion of one’s property.” While reasonable suspicion may justify a canine sniff of a place or a car, reasonable suspicion is too low of a standard for the search of a person.

When the sniff is of a person, the police must have probable cause to believe that a canine search will produce contraband or evidence of a crime. Probable cause means that it is more likely than not that some evidence or illegal contraband will be found. This means that if the police conduct a canine sniff without probable cause, the results of the search could be suppressed in court by filling a Motion to Suppress.

Canine Sniffs of a Car

When the police want to conduct a canine sniff of a car, they are only required to have reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion permits an officer to detain an individual in order to conduct an investigation if the officer reasonably suspects that the individual is engaging in criminal conduct. When evaluating whether an officer had reasonable suspicion, the court will look at the totality of the circumstances and whether the officer can provide specific, articulable facts as to why the officer believed the suspect was engaged in criminal activity. If the officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, then the officer may conduct a K9 sniff.

Recently, the Pennsylvania Superior Court approved of a canine sniff in the case of Commonwealth v. Green. In Green, the Court found reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention and canine sniff based on the following factors:

• The defendant was overly nervous for a routine traffic stop,

• The vehicle belonged to an absent third party,

• The defendant stated he was returning from Philadelphia, and the Trooper believed Philadelphia to be a source location for narcotics trafficking,

• The Trooper had prior contacts with the defendant during which the Trooper found drugs, and

• The defendant had numerous arrests and convictions for both violent crimes and drug offenses

Federal Limits on Police Canine Sniffs

There are other limits on police canine sniffs in addition to the requirement that police have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the decision to employ a canine. For example, police must still have reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the initial stop of the defendant that leads to the subsequent search. If the police pull a car over without any evidence of a crime or traffic offense, the results of a search could be suppressed even if the police later developed reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the canine search. Suppression would be required because of the illegality of the initial stop.

Recently, in Rodriguez v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s protections against unreasonable seizures. In Rodriguez, police stopped a car for driving on the shoulder of the highway. When police spoke with the driver, Rodriguez, he told them that he had swerved to avoid a pothole. The officer obtained the Rodriguez' paperwork and asked him to come with him to the patrol car. Rodriguez asked if he had to do so, and the officer said no. The officer returned to the patrol car to run the paperwork. After doing so, he returned to Rodriguez’ car. The officer questioned the front seat passenger, took his paperwork, and conducted a records check on that person. The officer then wrote a written warning and returned to the car to give it to Rodriguez.

After giving Rodriguez the warning, the stop should have been over. Instead, the officer asked Rodriguez for permission to conduct a canine sniff. Rodriguez politely declined, and the officer detained him anyway while he waited for backup. Once backup arrived, the officer conducted a canine sniff, the dog alerted for drugs, and police then searched the car and found drugs. Approximately eight minutes elapsed between the time when the officer finished issuing the warning and when the officer conducted the canine sniff.

Under federal law, a canine sniff is not considered a search and does not require reasonable suspicion or probable cause. However, the United States Supreme Court found that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to detain Rodriguez for the additional eight minutes before they conducted the canine sniff. The Court concluded that police may not prolong an ordinary traffic stop in order to conduct a canine sniff without reasonable suspicion. Although police may decide whether to issue a traffic ticket and check the driver’s paperwork, the police may not detain the car for additional time without a basis for doing so. Therefore, the Court reversed the conviction and ordered that the drugs be suppressed.

The Effect of Canine “Alerts”

The courts have held that canine sniffs where the canine ‘”alerts” provide police with probable cause to conduct a full blown search of a person or vehicle. Under Pennsylvania and Federal law, police are not required to get a warrant prior to searching a vehicle. Instead, they are required only to have probable cause prior to conducting a search. Therefore, if a trained police dog alerts to the presence of drugs, police may search the car or person. However, as the case law illustrates, there are still significant limits on canine searches. The courts have held that the initial stop must still be justified by reasonable suspicion or probable cause and the Pennsylvania courts have found that police must have reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the search of a car or a person. If the police make an illegal stop, improperly extend a traffic stop, or conduct a canine sniff without the required level of suspicion, then the results of the search should be suppressed.  

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers for Drug Cases

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorneys Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. and Demetra Mehta, Esq.

The Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys of Goldstein Mehta LLC have successfully represented hundreds of clients in drug possession and drug trafficking cases. We are experienced and understanding defense attorneys who will use our high level of skill and expertise on your behalf. We have successfully litigated pre-trial motions and obtained pre-trial dismissals and acquittals at trial. If you are facing drug possession charges, call 267-225-2545 for a free criminal defense strategy session. 

PA Supreme Court Finds Car Passenger Entitled to Suppression of Contraband in Illegally Stopped Car

Commonwealth v. Shabezz

In the case of Commonwealth v. Shabezz, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has affirmed on appeal that a passenger in a vehicle may successfully move to suppress evidence which is recovered from the vehicle where the vehicle was illegally stopped. The passenger may move for suppression even if the passenger did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the vehicle.

This means that if you are the passenger in a car you do not own and the police stop and search the car and find something illegal, you may move to suppress the contraband due to the initial illegal stop. Previously, it was unclear whether a passenger had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of someone else’s car, and trial judges would frequently use that line of argument in order to deny motions to suppress. 

Motions to Suppress

The first line of defense to gun charges and in drug cases is often the motion to suppress. In cases where the prosecution cannot show that the police legally recovered the evidence in question, it may be possible to have the evidence excluded at trial and the case dismissed by litigating a motion to suppress. In Pennsylvania, it is typically not enough for the defendant to show only that some sort of illegal search occurred. The defendant must also show both that he or she has standing to challenge the search and that he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched. 

What is a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?

Standing is generally not an issue because Pennsylvania appellate courts have held that any defendant charged with a possessory offense has automatic standing to challenge the search and seizure that led to the recovery of the evidence. Reasonable expectation of privacy, however, is frequently an important issue. The defendant must show that he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched. If the defendant cannot show that he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy which the police violated, then the court will deny the motion to suppress even if the police did something illegal. The prosecution bears the burden of showing that the police obtained the evidence in a lawful manner, but the defendant bears the burden of first showing that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.  

In many cases, reasonable expectation of privacy is relatively easy to understand. If you have drugs in your pocket, reasonable expectation of privacy is not going to be an issue because everyone will agree that you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of your pocket. In other cases, it is clear that you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If the police search your friend’s house when you are not in it and recover evidence which connects you to a crime, you will not be able to have that evidence suppressed even if police did not first obtain a search warrant. You simply do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in someone else’s house where you are not present or staying. Therefore, although the police may have violated your friend's constitutional rights, they have not violated your rights, and you have no remedy.  

Appellate courts have recognized that the basis test for reasonable expectation of privacy is as follows:

An expectation of privacy will be found to exist when the individual exhibits an actual or subjective expectation of privacy and that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. In determining whether a person’s expectation of privacy is legitimate or reasonable, the totality of the circumstances must be considered and the determination will ultimately rest upon a balancing of the societal interests involved. The constitutional legitimacy of an expectation of privacy is not dependent on the subjective intent of the individual asserting the right but on whether the expectation is reasonable in light of all the surrounding circumstances.

Thus, a defendant generally does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in houses or cars belonging to other people or in public places. At the same time, a defendant may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain places at work or in a restroom. 

In Commonwealth v. Shabezz, the Supreme Court held that a defendant-passenger need not show a reasonable expectation of privacy in a car which has been stopped illegally in order to have drugs or guns suppressed. In Shabezz, officers testified at a motion to suppress hearing that they observed what they believed to be a drug transaction and therefore stopped the car in which Shabezz was a passenger. Shabezz ran, and the police quickly caught him. They found marijuana and cash on him. They then searched the car from which he fled and found more marijuana, scales, packaging, some pills, and a gun. Prosecutors charged Shabezz with Possession with the Intent to Deliver.

The trial court, however, did not believe the police as to the reasons why they stopped the car. Although police testified to observing a drug transaction prior to stopping the car, they had completely failed to mention the drug transaction in any of the police reports which they prepared at the time of the arrest. They also testified that they were able to see the exchange of money for small objects from 45 feet away at night without binoculars. Therefore, the court granted the motion to suppress, finding that the initial stop of the vehicle was illegal. 

The prosecution appealed, and the appeal eventually reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that the motion should have been denied because Shabezz was merely a passenger in a vehicle, and as a passenger, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car. 

What Happens if the Police Illegally Stop a Car?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected that argument. It noted that there is a difference between standing and reasonable expectation of privacy. In order to prevail in a motion to suppress, the defendant must typically be able to show both. As explained, standing is easy – if you are charged with a possessory offense, you have standing. But reasonable expectation of privacy is often more complicated. In this situation, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that no reasonable expectation of privacy was required. The defendant must simply show that he was a passenger in the car and that the car was stopped illegally prior to the police finding the evidence which the prosecution wants to use. Here, the Court found that the initial police illegality of unlawfully stopping the vehicle tainted all of the subsequently recovered evidence. That evidence became fruit of the poisonous tree, and therefore, the trial court properly granted the motion to suppress.

The Court's opinion simplifies the remedy for challenging an illegal car stop. If the police stop a car illegally and find contraband, it does not matter if the defendant is the driver or the passenger. Both the driver and the passenger have had their rights violated by being seized without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Therefore, both the driver and the passenger now have the same remedy.

Charged with a crime? We Can Help 

If you are facing criminal charges in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers can help. We have successfully litigated countless motions to suppress in gun and drug cases, and we have helped clients favorably resolve all types of criminal charges. We offer a 15-minute criminal defense strategy session to anyone who is facing criminal charges or who may be under investigation. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an award-winning defense attorney today. 

When can police conduct an inventory search of my 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

Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire explains some of the defenses to gun charges in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. If you are facing criminal charges, call 267-225-2545 or visit us at goldsteinmehta.com to schedule a free criminal defense strategy session.

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.