-
874 A.2d 108 Superior Court of Pennsylvania April 25, 2005
Appellant also maintains the police searched the Corolla without a warrant, after Appellant and his cohorts had departed.
¶28 With respect to Appellant’s challenge to the warrantless police search of the rental car following the second investigative detention, we note generally under Pennsylvania law, a defendant charged with a possessory offense has
See also Hall, supra (stating unauthorized driver of rental car lacked standing to challenge search after car was impounded); Colin, supra (holding defendant did not have standing to challenge constitutionality of vehicle search
-
619 A.2d 735 Superior Court of Pennsylvania January 4, 1993 No. 835
Copenhefer, 526 Pa. 555 , 587 A.2d 1353 (1991), to support its contention that the police properly played the tape without a warrant. In Copenhefer , the police seized a computer pursuant to a valid search warrant.
Our supreme court held that once the computer had been seized pursuant to a valid search warrant, the police could access its files without obtaining a separate search warrant.
The police then performed an automobile search incident to arrest. During *405 their search, the police removed a zippered valise from Timko’s car and searched it.
-
973 A.2d 428 Superior Court of Pennsylvania May 13, 2009 No. 1932 EDA 2007
Police ultimately determined that Appellant was not the owner of the vehicle. Appellant was arrested on the outstanding warrant and placed in the rear of the patrol car.
The officers called the parking authority so that the car could be towed. Because the car would be towed, Officer Riser conducted an inventory search of the vehicle.
In the instant case, because Appellant was arrested on an open warrant, the police did not know if or when the Appellant would be released from detention on the warrant.
-
677 A.2d 328 Superior Court of Pennsylvania April 18, 1996
In order to search an automobile without a warrant, the police must still show the existence of both probable cause and exigent circumstances. Commonwealth v.
Herein the police have not established exigent circumstances such as would excuse them from obtaining a warrant to search the automobile nor is the search permissible as a search incident to arrest.
The police have not shown any reason why they could not have obtained a warrant before searching the car since Appellant was already in custody and there was no danger that any contraband within the car could be removed by him.
-
753 A.2d 245 Superior Court of Pennsylvania May 9, 2000
The search, therefore, was within the caretaking function of the police, and, as such, was properly conducted without a warrant. Id. at 1177.
The search, therefore, was within the caretaking function of the police, and, as such, was properly conducted without a warrant." Id. Thus, the case is not so distinguishable as it may appear at first glance.
If we permitted routine inventory searches of such vehicles, we may be unwittingly permitting the inventory search to be a substitute for the investigatory search of vehicles without the safeguards provided by the warrant requirement
-
600 A.2d 1282 Superior Court of Pennsylvania December 23, 1991 No. 653
Where the police forcibly enter a residence to serve a search warrant at the same time as an eight-year-old boy opens the door in response to a falsehood that his father’s car has been struck, has appellant been given a reasonable
Applying the aforementioned standard, we will first address appellant’s assertion that the search warrant was issued without probable cause.
I just hit the car.” When the boy opened the door I said “Police, search warrant, I ran past him and I was yelling as I went *105 through.”
-
975 A.2d 1128 Superior Court of Pennsylvania May 26, 2009 No. 697 MDA 2008
¶ 23 For his fourth issue on appeal, Ventura claims that the trial court erred by denying suppression of the bloody 6 knife seized from his jacket because police acted without a search warrant.
¶ 24 This argument fails because the law in Pennsylvania is well-settled: [A]n arresting officer may, without a warrant, search a person validly arrested, and the constitutionality of a search incident to a valid arrest does not
even though made without a search warrant, as both searches were incident to a lawful arrest.
-
191 A.3d 31 Superior Court of Pennsylvania June 15, 2018 No. 175 MDA 2017
a License. 1 The charges in this case stem from the police search of a vehicle driven by Pernell Riddick.
There, the defendant was a passenger in a car that police pulled over for an inoperative taillight.
The police located all of the contraband in the front of the car.
-
188 A.3d 1199 Superior Court of Pennsylvania May 24, 2018 No. 2671 EDA 2017
On March 10, 2015, at 7:53 AM, Octavia Douglas, Appellant's then-girlfriend, contacted Phillipsburg Police to report that Appellant had taken her rental car without permission. She also called Appellant's mother, Ms.
Douglas's rental car, EPD arrested Appellant pursuant to a warrant on March 18, 2015.
cell phone constitutes a search that requires police to obtain a search warrant prior to extraction.
-
187 A.3d 927 Superior Court of Pennsylvania May 9, 2018 No. 1074 MDA 2017
State Police then towed the car to the Lancaster barracks. Trooper Velez then prepared an application for a search warrant for the Nissan.
searched his vehicle without a warrant, and found suspected drugs in the vehicle."
In other words, "[w]ithout the information regarding the drugs found in the car, there was no reasonable suspicion to support the dog sniff *940 search, and without the dog sniff search, there was no probable cause to issue the warrant
-
272 A.2d 271 Superior Court of Pennsylvania December 10, 1970 Nos. , 1128
After entry, defendant was told the purpose of the visit and shown the warrant. When a search of the room revealed a quantity of marijuana, McCloskey was advised of his rights and arrested.
The Fourth Amendment prohibition against any unreasonable search and seizure requires that before a police official enters private premises to conduct a search or to make an arrest, he must give notice of his identity and purpose,
Ed. 2d 309 (1966) (landlord allowed police search of tenant’s room).
-
683 A.2d 643 Superior Court of Pennsylvania August 23, 1996 No. 00378
The officers then placed Veronica Bach, the driver of the Beretta, in the back of the police car and attempted to speak to appellant, but appellant did not understand English.
In Terry , the Court granted authority to police officers to pat-down or frisk an individual for weapons based upon the reasonable belief that criminal activity is afoot, and that the suspect may be armed and dangerous.
Recently, however, the United States Supreme Court expanded the scope of a Terry search by adopting the “plain feel” exception to the warrant require *153 ment. In Minnesota v.
-
882 A.2d 1008 Superior Court of Pennsylvania September 2, 2005
¶ 2 On July 2, 2003, police officers of the Connellsville Police Department executed a search warrant on Appellant’s residence located at 131 Marshall Street in Trotter, Fayette County.
¶ 3 On September 5, 2003, officers of the Connellsville Police Department executed a second search warrant on Appellant’s residence.
The police also found a baggie without corners on Appellant’s person. Id., at 49. Officer Ronald J.
-
128 A.3d 1231 Superior Court of Pennsylvania December 2, 2015 No. 3607 EDA 2014
On May 13, 2013, they applied for, and executed, a warrant to search the vehicle.
’s cell phones from a kitchen garbage can without a warrant; (4) the May 13, 2013 warrant to search the content stored on Freeman’s cell phones was not supported by probable cause; and (5) detectives illegally seized Freeman’s Buick
Whether the warrant to search [Freeman’s] phones lacked probable cause. 5. Whether [Freeman’s] ■car was unlawfully seized without a warrant.. 6.
-
981 A.2d 274 Superior Court of Pennsylvania September 14, 2009 No. 1491 WDA 2008
After Williams was arrested, Erie Police Department Lieutenant Michael Nolan applied for a search warrant for Appellant’s residence.
Upon making these observations, the police entered the residence and secured it and the occupants while they awaited the search warrant.
Appellant claimed that the police did not have a warrant to enter upon the front porch and that they failed to establish exigent circumstances. A hearing took placed on January 30, 2008.
-
344 A.2d 633 Superior Court of Pennsylvania September 22, 1975 Nos. s, Nos. 491 and 492
Following the search, the car was locked and subsequently towed to the police station. The following day, October 4, 1972, a search warrant was issued and additional evidence was taken from the car at the barracks.
The primary consideration prompting the dual standard is that since a motor vehicle is mobile, evidence may often be transported out of reach if the police are required to secure a warrant before they are permitted to search.
consider under what circumstances such search may be made.
-
188 A.3d 454 Superior Court of Pennsylvania May 11, 2018 No. 3940 EDA 2017
He then handcuffed Davis and locked him in the back of the police car.
"As a general rule, a search conducted without a warrant is presumed to be unreasonable unless it can be justified under a recognized exception to the search warrant requirement." Commonwealth v.
United States , 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996), drug enforcement officers searched a car without a warrant, and the suppression court found both probable cause and reasonable suspicion to support the search.
-
743 A.2d 946 Superior Court of Pennsylvania November 24, 1999
without a warrant.
¶ 19 The present case demonstrates the problems of the police proceeding into a premises without a warrant. The evidence which the police seized as a result of Mr.
Upon entry, the police found an illegal distillery, which they subsequently seized without a warrant. ¶ 5 Unlike Chapman , Mr. Taylor was authorized to enter the Appellant's premises.
-
153 A.3d 1034 Superior Court of Pennsylvania December 29, 2016 No. 845 EDA 2016
Police also obtained a search warrant for the car and discovered a .25 caliber pistol, a .25 caliber magazine, a box of .22-caliber ammunition, a container with a small amount of marijuana, and thirty-four Ecstasy pills.
After the vehicle was impounded, police conducted a second search pursuant to a warrant. PCRA Op. at 14. Watley argues that the evidence recovered from this search should have been suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.
The United States Supreme Court, in addressing when a police officer may conduct a protective weapons search of the interior compartment of a car, has held that: [T]he search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited
-
64 A.3d 1101 Superior Court of Pennsylvania March 21, 2013
police cruiser about one car length behind?
Corporal Dowlin testified that Appellant turned his vehicle from one street to another without using his signal lamps. 4 Seeing this himself, Corporal Dowlin unquestionably possessed facts to warrant belief by any reasonable person
These principles compel our conclusion that the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.