Brett Hambright
Lancester Online
Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:00 CDT


Pennsylvania police officers no longer need a warrant to search a citizen's vehicle, according to a recent state Supreme Court opinion.

The high court's opinion, released Tuesday, is being called a drastic change in citizens' rights and police powers.

Previously, citizens could refuse an officer's request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant - signed by a judge - to conduct the search.

That's no longer the case, according to the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery.

The ruling, passed on a 4-2 vote, was made in regard to an appeal from a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia.

Local police and legal professionals are calling the opinion "big news."

"This is a significant change in long-standing Pennsylvania criminal law, and it is a good one," Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman said Wednesday afternoon.

Under prior law, an officer who smells marijuana inside a car, for example, could only search the car with the driver's consent - or if illegal substances were in plain view

(Federal officers, like FBI or ATF agents, can search, regardless.)

Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with a search without a warrant.

"The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search," McCaffery writes in the opinion. "We adopt the federal automobile exception... which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so..."

Previously, a warrantless search was only allowed if "exigent circumstances" existed, the opinion states.

"This case gives the police simpler guidelines to follow and (it) finally and clearly renders our law consistent with established federal law," Stedman said.

"It is a ruling that helps law enforcement as they continue to find people in possession of illegal drugs," New Holland police Lt. Jonathan Heisse said Wednesday.

While police rejoice over what's been a lasting issue, citizens might not be as thrilled.

"It's an expanding encroachment of government power," defense attorney Jeffrey Conrad said Wednesday morning, while reviewing the 62-page opinion. "It's a protection we had two days ago, that we don't have today. It's disappointing from a citizens' rights perspective."

Christopher Patterson, another veteran defense lawyer, said: "I am concerned that we are on a slippery slope that will eliminate personal privacy and freedom in the name of expediency for law enforcement."

Shiem Gary filed the Philadelphia appeal, arguing that police didn't have probable cause to search his vehicle on Jan. 15, 2010. Officers found two pounds of marijuana stashed under the vehicle's hood.

Lancaster defense attorney Michael Winters noted that police still need good reasons to pull over a vehicle and conduct a search.

"This does not mean that they may search every vehicle they stop," Winters said. "They must still develop probable cause before they are permitted to search your vehicle without a warrant."

In the Gary case, probable cause for the vehicle stop was window tint the officers believed to be illegal. Officers smelled marijuana and asked about it; Shiem then told an officer there was "weed" in the vehicle. A search ensued.

"This case does not eliminate the need for the police to have probable cause to search," Stedman said.

The district attorney said the ruling puts Pennsylvania in line with federal law and many other states.

Locals stressed that probable cause to stop a vehicle does not equate with probable cause to search it.

A driver can still refuse if an officer asks for consent to search a car. The officer can then only search if he/she has probable cause to do so, or a warrant. A driver refusing consent, alone, does not give a police officer probable cause to search.

Christopher Lyden, another local defense lawyer, believes if an officer wants to search a vehicle without consent, they should have to get approval from a judge - as they do in searches of homes.

"Judicial oversight of vehicle searches, just like residential searches," he said, "helps maintain a free society."

Chief Supreme Court Justice Ronald D. Castille and Justices J. Michael Eakin and Thomas G. Saylor joined McCaffery in the majority.

Justices Debra McCloskey Todd and Max Baer opposed it.

Another freedom gone.

Hopefully this will be struck down in the courts long before it becomes a trend!

It amazes me! What part of "shall not be infringed" is it these idiots and voters don't get?

Seems people quit reading material that matters..... like the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights!

In case you didn't know,above was replaced by:

"We Don't Need No Stinkin' Warrant"!

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/we-dont-need-no-stinkin-warrant-scotus-sides-with-cops-against-the-4th-amendment_022014

damn liberals... everything is geared to help police, and not the citizens... mostly a phony world we live in...

I say stay the f in out of PA. seems the farther you go north east in the us.the grazyer it gets..ill keep south. god guns and guts keep us free down here!!!!

Seems the east and west shorelines belong to the liberals with the rest of us being squeezed and herded into the middle by the insanity

MLK said "I have a dream!"

Obozo says "I have a drone!" His father had the dreams....destroy the giant serpent called the USA

This whole topic has more to do with the people than the state. It is a matter of jurisdiction and that is established when some law enforcement officer illegality declares an emergency and pulls one over.

And then what do the people do, the officer commands jurisdiction and the people give it to them, voluntarily. And once jurisdiction has been given, you are only allotted the privileges establish by the statutes.

However, jurisdiction, once challenged must be proved, not assumed. But what I find fun is that you come across two types of officers, the intelligent peace officer and the unintelligent law enforcement officer. The fun part being the reaction when they are challenged.

The intelligent peace officer will look like a rabbit caught in high beams, a look of fear with big eyes. I laugh every time when they all of a sudden have something better to do and just can't seem to get to that cruiser fast enough to make their escape.

It is the other one that is the challenge. Some just huff and puff and threaten, just make sure you record the event. Once they start the threats, demand a supervisor or call 911 and demand yourself. It is this individual I am interested in, he will have his rant on the side of the road, I will have his a$$ for the next five years as we transition through the court system. And not just him but his entire chain of command. Now that is my enjoyment.

But then most of them just give up and give you a citation but that is fun also and another story.