PA Superior Court: Odor of Marijuana Still Contributes to Probable Cause

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Batista, holding that the smell of fresh marijuana, along with other indications that the property was being used as a grow house, provided police with probable cause to obtain a search warrant for the premises. Although there has been a liberalization of marijuana laws in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia, it is still illegal to grow and possess marijuana under many circumstances. Therefore, appellate courts have continued to hold that the odor of marijuana may give police probable cause to conduct a search.

Commonwealth v. Batista 

Officer Beattie of the Philadelphia Police learned from an unidentified source that a major marijuana growing operation was occurring at the defendant’s residence. Officer Beattie also learned from the unidentified source “that you can smell the odor of fresh marijuana coming out of the exhaust system that’s located in the front window of the first floor.” Officer Beattie and two other investigators went to see and smell the residence. The officers observed “a surveillance camera directed at the front door…a gated-in lot, with a shed located inside of the lot, and a surveillance camera” which faced the front of the property. Multiple officers then walked by the front of the residence and smelled a strong odor of fresh marijuana coming from the exhaust system that was running in the first-floor window. 

Officer Beattie then performed a real estate check that revealed that the defendant was the owner of the property. Officer Beattie next applied for a search warrant of the residence based on the above information. Additionally, Office Beattie included that he has been a Philadelphia police officer for approximately 23 years and assigned to the Narcotics Bureau for 20 of those years. The magistrate then concluded that there was sufficient probable cause to suspect the defendant of illegally growing marijuana in his garage and issued a search warrant. 

The next day, the police executed a search warrant and uncovered 91 marijuana plants in the defendant’s garage. The defendant was then placed under arrested and he was charged with various drug-related offenses. The defendant then filed a motion to suppress which was denied. The defendant then proceeded to a bench trial where he was found guilty of possession of marijuana with the intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. The defendant was then sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 11 ½ to 23 months incarceration. He appealed.

The Defendant’s Appeal 

In his appeal, the defendant argued that the magistrate’s finding of probable cause was erroneous. Specifically, he argued that marijuana is legal in Pennsylvania and decriminalized in Philadelphia. Further, he stated that “medical marijuana became legal in Pennsylvania more than one year before the search of his home when the legislature enacted the Medical Marijuana Act.” Also, he stated that because Philadelphia made possession of marijuana a civil offense the smell of marijuana is not indicative of criminal activity. Therefore, because of these new developments in the law regarding marijuana, the defendant argued that the policed lacked probable cause to search his residence.

Can the Police Stop Me if They Smell Marijuana?

Probably. In general, marijuana is still illegal under state and federal law. The fact that Philadelphia has stopped enforcing most marijuana prohibition does not mean that police do not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause based on the odor of marijuana. Further, there are very few medical marijuana dispensaries in the state of Pennsylvania, and the fact that some people now have medical marijuana does not necessarily mean that the odor of marijuana does not provide reasonable suspicion or probable cause for police to make a stop or search. However, as marijuana laws continue to be liberalized, it is possible that courts will eventually find that the odor of marijuana does not provide reasonable suspicion or probable cause for police to search someone because the police should not just assume that the person does not have a prescription to smoke marijuana.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Superior Court denied the defendant’s appeal. The Superior Court found that though the defendant’s argument was “novel,” he still would not prevail. The reason was, as discussed above, is that the police are still allowed to stop someone when they smell marijuana. Additionally, there was no evidence that his residence qualified as a dispensary. As the Superior Court noted, a very small number of growers have been qualified as a “grower/processor” under the Medical Marijuana Act. As of now, there can only be, at most, 25 of these growers/processors. Further, the Superior Court deferred to Officer Beattie’s experience as a narcotics officer. It is important to note that the Superior Court did not rely entirely on the odor of marijuana alone in justifying the search. The officer also noted other factors such as the camera, the exhaust system, and things of that nature in concluding that the defendant was operating a grow house. Had the officer merely smelled marijuana, the outcome may have been different. Therefore, the Superior Court held that there was sufficient probable cause to issue the search warrant. As such, the defendant will not get a new trial and he will have to serve his sentence.     

Facing Criminal Charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today. 

PA Supreme Court: Police May Often Search Commercial Trucks Without a Warrant

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Maguire, holding that individuals engaged in highly regulated commercial activities such as commercial trucking are not entitled to the same constitutional safeguards as the general public. This decision is highly relevant to those engaged in the trucking industry because it permits the government to set up checkpoints that would normally not be constitutional if they were designed to stop and search the general public. Therefore, those who are employed in this industry must be especially careful when engaged in commercial activities.  

Commonwealth v. Maguire 

On May 20, 2015, the Pennsylvania State Police and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter “DEP”) set up a commercial vehicle inspection program in accordance with 75 Pa.C.S. § 4704 which permits the police to set up a “systematic vehicle inspection program…to determine whether they meet standards established in department regulations.” The inspection was scheduled one month in advance, and it occurred at a Clinton County landfill located in McElhatten, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State Trooper Beaver, a motor vehicle enforcement officer, and a motor carrier enforcement supervisor comprised the team that conducted the checkpoint inspections. This team was stationed in a lot in front of the scale house near the entrance of the landfill. 

This team established and utilized a procedure where the first team member available would stop the next truck entering the landfill. At approximately 2:50 PM, it was Trooper Beaver’s turn to inspect a truck when he observed the defendant driving his truck. Trooper Beaver exited his vehicle and motioned for the defendant to pull into the lot where the team was located. The defendant complied with his request. Trooper Beaver then engaged the defendant in conversation and asked him to provide him with documents pertinent to the truck and its operation. While speaking with the defendant, Trooper Beaver detected smell of alcohol on the defendant’s breath. He then reviewed the defendant’s documents and did a walk-around inspection of the truck. 

Following the inspection, Trooper Beaver had the defendant exit the truck and told him that he smelled of alcohol and asked whether he had been drinking. The defendant stated he had one beer prior to his trip to the landfill. At this point, Trooper Beaver noticed a cooler on the floor of the truck near the gearshift. Inside this cooler, he saw three Busch light beers and two bottles of water. The defendant was then asked to perform a field sobriety test, which he failed. The defendant was then placed under arrest and transported to the Jersey Shore Hospital for blood testing. He was subsequently charged with DUI and five other counts of unlawful activities. 

The Motion to Suppress

The defendant then filed a motion to suppress the evidence. In his motion to suppress, the defendant argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because Trooper Beaver and his team did not comply with the Tarbert/Blouse guidelines which were promulgated to test the constitutionality of systematic, police-conducted vehicle checkpoints which were used to stop members of the general public (specifically for DUI’s). The trial court held a hearing at which Trooper Beaver was the only witness to testify. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ordered the parties to submit post-hearing briefs. The Commonwealth filed a brief arguing that the Tarbert/Blouse guidelines are inapplicable to the commercial vehicle safety checkpoints that were used in the instant case. The trial court agreed with the defendant and granted his motion to suppress. The Commonwealth then filed a timely appeal. 

On appeal, the Superior Court agreed with the Commonwealth. The Superior Court held that the Tarber/Blouse guidelines did not apply to a checkpoint for commercial vehicles. Instead, the trial court should have analyzed the checkpoint under the factors discussed in the United States Supreme Court’s case in New York v. Burger (these are guidelines that are directed at commercial related activities). Based on these Burger factors, the Superior Court held that the search was constitutional and reversed the trial court. The defendant then filed a petition for allowance of appeal, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review.

What are the Tarbert/Blouse Guidelines? 

The Tarbert/Blouse guidelines are factors that a court uses to determine whether a checkpoint is constitutional. Remember, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. If the police stop you at one of these checkpoints, this is technically a seizure. These checkpoints are commonly used to deter and arrest people who are suspected of driving under the influence. Pennsylvania appellate courts have held that these checkpoints are constitutional, so long as they sufficiently comply with the Tarbert/ Blouse guidelines.

According to the guidelines:

1) vehicle stops must be brief and must not entail a physical search;

2) there must be sufficient warning of the existence of the checkpoint;

3) the decision to conduct a checkpoint, as well as the decisions as to time and place for the checkpoint, must be subject to prior administrative approval;

4) the choice of time and place for the checkpoint must be based on local experience as to where and when intoxicated drivers are likely to be traveling; and

5) the decision as to which vehicles to stop at the checkpoint must be established by administratively pre-fixed, objective standards, and must not be left to the unfettered discretion of the officers at the scene.

It is important to remember that it is not required that all of these guidelines are present. Rather, they are just guidelines to determine whether the checkpoint in question is sufficiently compliant with the constitution.    

What are the Burger Factors? 

The Burger Court recognized owners of a commercial business or vehicle in a closely regulated industry have a substantially reduced expectation of privacy, and therefore, the Fourth Amendment warrant and probable cause requirements are lower for these individuals. Therefore, a warrantless inspection is constitutional if: 1) there is a substantial governmental interest informing the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection was made; 2) warrantless inspections are necessary to advance the regulatory scheme; and 3) the statute’s inspection program is applied with such certainty and regularity as to prove a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision and held that the Tarbert/Blouse guidelines were not applicable to the instant case. The Court reasoned that when the defendant was stopped, he was engaged in the trucking business, which is a closely regulated industry. Additionally, the Court stated that “owners of certain closely regulated businesses should expect that their businesses would be subject to warrantless administrative searches.” Therefore, the defendant had a reduced expectation of privacy when he was engaged in his trucking business. As such, his case will be remanded to the trial court and the Commonwealth will be able to use all the evidence that was suppressed in their case against him. 

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

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 Attempted Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

---

Note: Goldstein Mehta LLC’s Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog was recently recognized as one of the Top 50 Criminal Defense Blogs on the web by Feedspot.com. We greatly appreciate this recognition.

Attorney Goldstein Wins Dismissal of DUI Case Due to Racist Police Facebook Posts

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire recently won the case of Commonwealth v. R.J.when the Commonwealth agreed to withdraw the case due to the racist Facebook posts posted on social media by the arresting officer. In R.J., police established a DUI checkpoint on a Saturday night. R.J. was stopped at the checkpoint and ordered out of the car when the police determined that they smelled an odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle. They then performed field sobriety tests, which they claimed he failed, and placed him under arrest. Officers then detained R.J. in a holding pen for about an hour prior to administering a breathalyzer. The breathalyzer showed that R.J. had a BAC well above the legal limit, so police formally arrested him and charged him with DUI.

Attorney Goldstein filed a motion to suppress in the Municipal Court, and the motion was originally successful. Attorney Goldstein argued both that police had failed to follow the requirements of the Pennsylvania Constitution in determining the location of the checkpoint and that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden at the motion because police did not call the officer who actually arrested R.J. to testify. Instead, they called his partner who was standing nearby when the arresting officer ordered R.J. out of the car. Thus, Attorney Goldstein argued that the officer that actually testified was basing his information about the arrest and odor of alcohol entirely on hearsay, and therefore the Commonwealth failed to prove at the evidentiary hearing on the motion that police actually had probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain R.J.. 

The Municipal Court found that the checkpoint was constitutional but agreed that the Commonwealth was required to call the actual arresting officer to testify. Therefore, the Court granted the motion. The Commonwealth, however, appealed the granting of the suppression motion to the Court of Common Pleas. The Common Pleas judge found that the two officers were working together, and therefore the collective knowledge doctrine applied. The Court of Common Pleas reasoned that the partner was entitled to rely on the observations of the original arresting officer and that the Commonwealth had met its burden. Therefore, the Common Pleas judge reversed the granting of the motion and remanded the case for trial. 

Attorney Goldstein and R.J. made the decision to continue fighting the case even after the Common Pleas Court reversed the suppression motion. Attorney Goldstein still planned to challenge whether police had properly observed R.J. for the twenty-minutes required by PennDOT regulations prior to conducting R.J.’s breath test. However, shortly before trial, the Commonwealth turned over records showing that the arresting officer, who they had not called to testify at trial, had posted dozens of extremely racist and anti-muslim messages on Facebook. The Commonwealth turned this over right before trial, so Attorney Goldstein moved for the court to dismiss the charges based on the fact that the Commonwealth had violated its discovery obligations under the Rules of Criminal Procedure and under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Essentially, the police had known about the messages for months, and therefore they constituted Brady material that should have been turned over prior to the motion to suppress. After Attorney Goldstein moved to dismiss the case due to the Brady violation and discovery violation, or in the alternative, re-open the motion to suppress for a new hearing at which the arresting officer would have to testify and be confronted with the horrific posts, the trial judge asked the Commonwealth to consider withdrawing the charges, and they eventually did. All charges against R.J. were dismissed and he will be eligible to have the arrest expunged.

 Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

PA Supreme Court: Police Cannot Legally Stop You Just For Carrying A Gun

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Hicks, holding that the police cannot stop someone just because they believe the person has a gun. This decision could affect hundreds of cases, especially in Philadelphia, where the police routinely stop people for carrying guns without any actual knowledge of whether that person may be carrying lawfully.

Commonwealth v. Hicks

On June 28, 2014, at approximately 2:30 A.M., a remote camera operator conducting live surveillance of a gas station and convenience store in Allentown, Pennsylvania notified police officers that a patron of the establishment was in possession of a firearm. The camera operator advised officers that the individual showed the firearm to another patron, put the firearm in his waistband, covered it with his shirt, and walked inside the convenience store. This individual eventually became the defendant. Notably, the defendant possessed a valid license to carry a concealed firearm, and he was not statutorily prohibited from possessing a firearm. Accordingly, on the morning in question and at the observed location, there was nothing unlawful about the defendant’s possession of the handgun nor the manner in which he carried it. It is also not illegal to show a gun to someone else (so long as you do not point it at them).

While responding officers were en route, the defendant entered and exited the convenience store and then reentered his vehicle. Before the defendant could exit the parking lot, numerous police officers in marked vehicles intercepted and stopped his vehicle. Believing that the defendant had moved his hands around inside the vehicle, one of the officers drew his service weapon as he approached the defendant’s vehicle and ordered him to keep his hands up. Other officers came and restrained the defendant and removed the firearm. The officers stated that there was an odor of alcohol emanating from the defendant. They then searched him and recovered a small amount of marijuana.

Because the defendant had a license to carry a firearm, he was not charged with any crimes relating to the firearm. However, he was charged with DUI, possession of a small amount of marijuana, and disorderly conduct. The defendant filed an omnibus pre-trial motion seeking suppression of the evidence. He also filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging that there was not sufficient evidence to hold him for trial on the charge of disorderly conduct. The trial court agreed and dismissed the disorderly conduct charge. However, the court denied his motion to suppress.

In denying his motion, the trial court stated that possession of a concealed weapon in public creates the reasonable suspicion justifying an investigatory stop in order to investigate whether the person is properly licensed. This was based on the Pennsylvania Superior Court decision in Commonwealth v. Robinson (this is also referred to as “The Robinson Rule”). After the motion, the defendant proceeded to a non-jury trial where the court found him guilty of one count of DUI and acquitted him of the remaining charges. He was sentenced to a term of incarceration of thirty days to six months and was assessed a monetary fine. The defendant subsequently filed an appeal. The Superior Court affirmed his decision. Like the trial court, the Superior Court focused mainly on The Robinson Rule and held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant. The defendant then filed an allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which was granted.

What is the Robinson Rule?

The Robinson Rule was a rule that provided that carrying a concealed firearm constituted per se reasonable suspicion authorizing the use of official force to seize an individual in order to investigate whether the person is properly licensed. In other words, if the police received information that you were in possession of a firearm you could be stopped, by force if necessary and without a warrant, and subjected to an investigation to determine whether or not you were lawfully allowed to possess the firearm.

For those of you familiar with the Terry doctrine, this seems out of place with it because possessing a firearm is often not illegal. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution allows for individuals to possess firearms. Because a Terry stop is only warranted when the officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot (or in other words an objectively reasonable belief based on all of the facts known to the officer that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity). With Terry in mind, it seems peculiar that The Robinson Rule would be constitutional. This is what the defendant argued in his appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Carrying A Gun Does Not Give Police Reasonable Suspicion

In its decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court first analyzed several of its prior decisions and decisions from other jurisdictions that addressed the issue of whether the police can stop someone for possession of a firearm. For instance, the Court analyzed the decisions in Commonwealth v. Hawkins and Commonwealth v. Jackson, two cases that are routinely cited when litigating a motion to suppress a gun. In these decisions, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court highlighted how its predecessors routinely dismissed the Commonwealth’s argument that the police can stop someone simply because they have information that they have a gun.

The Court also applied the Terry and its progeny of cases to the facts in the defendant’s case. Based on its analysis, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that The Robinson Rule subverts the fundamental principles of Terry. The Court stated “[w]e find no justification for the notion that a police officer may infer criminal activity merely from an individual’s possession of a concealed firearm in public…it is not a criminal offense for a license holder…to carry a concealed firearm in public.” The Court further stated “[u]nless a police officer has prior knowledge that a specific individual is not permitted to carry a concealed firearm, and absent articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that a firearm is being used or intended to be used in a criminal manner, there is simply no justification for the conclusion that the mere possession of a firearm, where it lawfully may be carried, is alone suggestive of criminal activity.”

Finally, the Court analogized this to driving a car. It is obviously a requirement for someone to have a driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle, however the police cannot stop every single person to ascertain this information. Because possessing a gun is legal, police are not allowed to stop every person to see if they have a license. Consequently, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts erred when denying the defendant’s motion to suppress. Therefore, the Court remanded the case for the trial court to rule on whether police had any basis for stopping the defendant beyond his mere possession of a concealed weapon.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Attorneys Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

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 Attempted Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.