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.

Third Circuit: Defendant Has Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Girlfriend's Rental Car

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has decided the case of United States v. Christopher Montalvo-Flores, finding that the District Court should have found that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car he was operating. The evidence from the suppression hearing showed that his girlfriend loaned him the car, but it also showed that he did not sign the rental paperwork and he did not have a driver’s license. Nonetheless, the Court found that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and therefore could challenge an unlawful search of that vehicle.

The Facts of Montalvo-Flores:

In November 2019, officers executed an arrest warrant at a hotel in New Jersey for Montalvo-Flores, the defendant, in connection with his suspected involvement in a robbery. A search incident to arrest of the defendant yielded keys to an Enterprise rental car that was leased by his girlfriend. Although the defendant insisted that the keys were his, officers had knowledge that the defendant did not have a valid driver’s license. Police officers located the car in the hotel parking lot, they discovered that it was not reported lost or stolen, and they learned that its registered owner was Enterprise Rental Car Company. Earlier that day, police officers observed the girlfriend give the defendant the keys. They also observed the defendant operating the rental car.

Police officers then called Enterprise’s regional risk manager to obtain permission to search the car. The officers told Enterprise’s manager that the defendant was operating the car while involved in criminal activity. The Enterprise manager, noting that the rental contract prohibited the use of the car for criminal purposes and that the defendant was not listed on the rental agreement, purported to give officers consent of the lessee, the girlfriend, to search the car. Inside the car, officers found 304 grams of cocaine in the trunk and $35 in the center console. As a result, the defendant was charged with possession of intent to distribute cocaine in federal court.

The Procedural History

The defendant moved to suppress the cocaine and money that officers recovered after searching the rental car. He argued that he lawfully possessed and controlled the car based on permission to use the car given to him by his girlfriend. In response, the government acknowledged that the girlfriend gave him permission to operate it, but the prosecution asserted that police lawfully searched the car without a warrant because the defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy due to his lack of a valid driver’s license and the fact that he was not listed on the car’s rental agreement. The government also argued that the police had consent from the car’s registered owner, Enterprise, to search the car. The United States District Court held a hearing on the motion to suppress ion order to determine the legality of the search and whether the drugs and money would be admissible at trial.

The Suppression Hearing

During the suppression hearing, the officers acknowledged that the defendant’s girlfriend rented the car and that the defendant possessed the keys. Detective Holmes, the main witness for the government, testified that prior to the search, fellow officers observed the girlfriend giving the defendant the car and that fellow officers observed the defendant operate the car. The government also acknowledged the defendant’s possession of the car when a witness for the government testified that he called Enterprise and told the agent that the person operating the car did not have a license, had warrants, and was part of an armored truck robbery. The officers used the keys to open the car and found the cocaine and cash that the defendant moved to suppress after the Enterprise agent gave permission to search.

The District Court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that he lacked standing because he failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy. The District Court based its opinion on Byrd v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1518 (2018). The District Court concluded that, contrary to evidence given at the suppression hearing, the defendant “was never observed possessing, operating, or otherwise exercising any sort of control over the rental vehicle aside from possessing the keys thereto.” After the denial of the suppression hearing, the Defendant proceeded by way of stipulated bench trial. The District Court found him guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). He was sentenced to 40 months of incarceration followed by three years’ supervised released. He appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit’s Ruling

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. It found that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his girlfriend’s rental car. The Court of Appeals opined that there was clear error in the District Court’s factual finding that the Defendant “was never observed possessing, operating, or otherwise exercising any sort of control over the rental vehicle aside from possessing the keys thereto.”

The Court began by citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) in explaining that when making a reasonable expectation of privacy analysis, a trial court must begin with a two-prong approach to determine first, whether the defendant “exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and second, whether his expectation was one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.” The Court noted that the defendant bears the burden of proving each element.

In finding a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Third Circuit based its opinion on the unrebutted testimony of the detective. That testimony showed the defendant proved the first prong when the officers took his keys from him and he exclaimed “those are my rent-a-car-keys!” Officers needed the keys to open the locked car parked outside his hotel. This showed that the defendant believed he had privacy in the car and took steps to preserve his privacy.

During its analysis of the second prong, the Court explained that when deciding whether the expectation of privacy is reasonable, a must make a fact-based analysis dependent on the strength of the defendant’s interest in the car and the nature of his control over it, noting that ownership is not necessary. The Third Circuit cited a case where the Supreme Court held that “the mere fact that a driver in lawful possession or control of a rental car is not listed on the rental agreement will not defeat his or her otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy.” Noting that “one who . . . lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy by virtue of the right to exclude.” The Appeals Court listed several facts to show that the defendant’s expectation of privacy was reasonable, noting: the lessee, the girlfriend, was the defendant’s girlfriend; she gave the car’s keys to him; he possessed the keys when arrested; the car was parked outside his hotel room; it was locked; and he was observed by police possessing and operating it. The Court reasoned that the context strongly suggested that the defendant had dominion and control of the car with his girlfriend’s permission finding the District Court’s determination was clear error.

Because the Appeals Court found the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car, the government needed to justify its warrantless search at the suppression hearing by showing probable cause to search the car. The Appeals Court vacated the defendant’s conviction and the denial of his motion to suppress, and it ordered the case be remanded for further proceedings. This case demonstrates the fact-specific nature of suppression hearings and how a good attorney can establish a legitimate privacy interest through tactical cross-examination. This ruling shows that while a defense attorney may do a good job through skillful cross-examination in establishing a legitimate privacy interest of the defendant, trial courts do not always make the proper rulings. This case recognizes that while the initial battle may be lost the war for innocence does not stop at “guilty.”

Facing criminal charges or appealing a conviction in state or federal court? We can help.

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.

PA Superior Court: Police May Search Car and Defendant Without Warrant When Defendant Has Gun and Drugs in Plain View

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Green, affirming a Philadelphia trial court’s finding that police officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was in possession of illegal narcotics and a firearm where the defendant was sitting inside of a car that police believed to be abandoned with drug paraphernalia in plain view, the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the car, and the outline of what police believed to be a gun in his pocket. Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allocatur on the issue of whether the plain view exception to the warrant requirement applies to automobiles, The moral of the story is that it is ill-advised to keep your guns and drugs in plain view where the police can see them.

The Facts of Green

On June 1, 2019, two Philadelphia Police officers were on routine patrol in a marked police vehicle and investigating complaints of narcotic sales and illegally parked vehicles near the West Poplar Apartment Complex. One officer was familiar with the housing complex as he had worked in that district for more than ten years and made numerous narcotics and firearms arrests in that apartment complex and area. One of the officers noticed a white Chevy Malibu he believed had been parked in the complex, unmoved, for about two weeks. The officers pulled up to investigate the vehicle, believing that it may have been abandoned. The officers approached on foot, noticed the vehicle’s inspection stickers were peeling off and it had damage to the body of the vehicle. They smelled the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the car. The vehicle had tinted windows, and as one officer went to the front to look through the windshield, he noticed the defendant in the front passenger seat fully reclined. The officer then noticed small vials and plastic baggies, which he recognized to be consistent with narcotics packaging for crack cocaine, as well as “blunt guts” scattered around the vehicle.

As the officer took a closer look at the defendant through the windshieled, he noticed the outline of a firearm in the front pocket of the defendant’s tight-fitting sweatsuit. The officer could see the entire imprint of the firearm. That officer notified his partner he believed he saw a firearm and radioed for backup.

One police officer attempted to speak with the defendant by knocking on the windshield and requesting that the defendant step out of the vehicle and provide paperwork. The defendant opened his eyes slightly and then closed them again as if he were checking if the officers were still there and then pretending to be asleep. The police were unable to get him to respond.

The officers attempted to make contact for fifteen minutes. They were on the verge of calling for a SWAT team, but their supervisor directed them to break the windows and pull the defendant out of the car. They did so, and they recovered a 9mm pistol from the defendant and placed him under arrest.

The Criminal Charges

The defendant was charged with carrying a firearm without a license and carrying a firearm on the public streets of Philadelphia without a license (VUFA § 6106 and § 6108). Both these offenses are violations of the Uniform Firearms Act. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the firearm, and the trial court denied the motion to suppress. The judge found him guilty following a bench trial, and he appealed.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court should have granted the motion to suppress. First, the Court explained the typical rules that may apply to this type of police encounter. Pennsylvania Courts have developed three categories of interactions between citizens and police officers to better determine if an individual’s rights are being infringed. The categories are:

1) a “mere encounter” (or request for information) which need not be supported by any level of suspicion but is not an order and can be completely ignored.

2) an “investigative detention” which must be supported by a reasonable suspicion; it subjects the individual to a stop and a period of detention but does not rise to the level of the functional equivalent of arrest, and

3) “custodial detention,” or the functional equivalent of an arrest, which must be supported by probable cause.

A person is subject to an investigative detention, which requires reasonable suspicion, when a reasonable person in their position would not feel free to leave.

In this case, the Superior Court concluded that the officers did not need any level of suspicion to approach the parked car on foot, but they needed reasonable suspicion to break the windows and pull the defendant out of the car. The Court, however, found that they had reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances - the defendant was in a car which had numerous obvious motor vehicle code violations, there was drug paraphernalia in plain view, he pretended he did not see the police even though he opened his eyes, and he also had a gun on him.

Accordingly, the police were justified in breaking into the car and removing him from the vehicle. Whether or not the police may retrieve contraband from a car when the contraband is in plain view is still an open question; as previously mentioned, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted review on that issue. So far, however, the Superior Court has repeatedly held that police may enter a car to retrieve obviously visible contraband even without a search warrant. The police ordinarily may not search a car without a warrant, but when guns and drugs are out in the open, the police may not need to get a warrant.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense 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. 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.

Attorney Goldstein Wins Re-Sentencing on Appeal for Client Who Received 35 Years for Drugs

Criminal Appeals Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won a new sentencing hearing for a client who received 17.5 - 35 years’ incarceration followed a conviction for possession with the intent to deliver in Blair County, PA. The client was originally charged with drug delivery resulting in death, possession with the intent to deliver, criminal use of a communications facility, and recklessly endangering another person. The jury convicted him only of the PWID, CUCF, and REAP. It did not convict him of the homicide. Nonetheless, the trial judge imposed a sentence of 17.5 - 35 years’ incarceration for PWID even though the Commonwealth’s pre-trial offer had been for a jail term of less than half of that on the homicide charge. The client retained Attorney Goldstein for appeal, and the Superior Court vacated the sentence. It is rare for an appellate court to determine that a sentence should be vacated purely because it was excessive, but in this case, Attorney Goldstein was able to convince the Superior Court that the sentence was far too much. The Court found that the sentence was clearly excessive and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. Learn more here.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense 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. 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.