1

PA CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DISTINCTIONS

1) Approach to Test: a) Do a federal law analysis i) If ( wins: The same result would be reached under Pennsylvania Law. ii) If ( loses: Under PA Constitutional law, ( would probably win. PA courts would apply the Edmunds test to interpret the PA constitutional provisions at issue here. In PA, [add the rule and apply]. b) Start with States are always allowed to grant its citizens more rights than mandated by the US Constintution and Federal law. c) Then do Edmunds factors d) Then rules covered, if it deviates from Fed. Law

2) Supremacy Clause a) Fed. Constition and laws shall be the supreme law of the landanything in the Const. of the states to the Contrary notwithstanding. b) Fed. Laws provide a floor, not a ceiling for enforcement by states States can always grant more rights and protections. Only violative of Supremacy clause, when State tries to grant less rights c) Easiest to apply in criminal cases b/c its D v. state, so D can always get more rights d) Hard in noncriminal cases, w/ 2 individuals pitted against each other b/c increasing ones rights necessarily limits the others. State must usually follow Federal law. e) PA Constn has heightened NOTION OF PRIVACY RIGHTS (if right to privacy is the issue, select the answer granting most Right to PA citizens) 3) Adequate and Independent State Grounds USSCOTUS = no jurisdicyion to hear state case a) If state law adequately and independently supports the state court decision, the US Supreme Court lacks JD to hear the appeal even if the state court wrongly applied federal law. b) If SC can hear a case, they have the power to invalidate existing state constitional law c) If a state court decision has mixed references to both Fed. & state law: i) The Supreme Court assumes that the decision rests on federal precedentand will hear it: (1) UNLESS the state court gives a plain statement directly in the opinion that the state ground is independent of federal law. (2) This gives unprecedented SC intervention, so lawyers should carfully argue only state constl issues and judges must explicitly rely on state constl law in their opinions. This gave rise to PAs decision in Edmunds (holding good faith exception violated PAs heightened notion of privacy): 4) Edmunds Test Applies if ANY CRIM PRO VIOLATION RAISED a) PAs SC mandates that attys raising ANY constitutional issue MUST raise, brief, and argue: i) Text of PAs Const. -- of applicable state constitutional provision ii) History (mostly any relevant case law) History of the provision including relevant case law iii) Other states Related case lawand iv) The policy considerations, including unique issues of state and local concern b) Waiver: Failure to brief in this manner does not result in a dismissal 5) Search and Seizure Distinctions (Where PA does not follow the federal rule) PA Cons. Art. I, 8 HEIGHTENED PRIVACY NOTION a) Bank recordsare searches requires probable cause i) Not searches: statements & materials submitted to insurance company OR ii) Nonfinancial personal information held by bank (ex: name, address) b) (s have automatic standing to challenge admissibility of Ev. Alleged by other person w/ standing under Fed. Law to be FOPT for possessory offenses c) Automatic Standing to sue for Improper Search and Seizure 3rd Party (more liberal) (1) Present at the time of search

2 (2) Possessory interest in the evidence improperly seized (3) Possession is an essential element of Pros. Case; OR (4) Proprietary interest in the premises searched. Pen registers(electronic) and call logs w/ incoming/outgoing calls are searches Blood Tests (Blood alcohol level) only allowed when obtained for purposes enumerated in statute (ex: suspicion of DUI) BUT i) Suspicion by police or medical personell MUST GIVE RISE to the test, does not require consent Canine sniffs = search i) On the person: PC required ii) At a place: reasonable suspicion required (ex: storage locker) No good faith exception to the exclusionary rule i) If warrant invalid b/c of probable cause search invalid, even if facially valid warrant ii) Valid warrant = description of person and things as nearly as may be + based on probable cause + oath of affiant Automobile Searches ELIMINATED EXCEPTION TO NO WARRANT REQUIREMENT: Exigent circumstances required to search automobile after lawful arrestw/out warrant (if occupants arrested, outside the automobile AND in police custody) BUT i) Potential harm to police from a loaded weapon in a RUNNING VEHICLE ii) Compare to Fed: Can search passanger compartments if: (1.) D is not secured and may gain access to the car OR (2.) P.O. reasonably believes ev. For which D was arrested mzy be found in car Fleeing Suspects i) Must have PC to arrest or reasonable suspicion to stopand frisk, otherwise in a police pursuit without prior cause or suspicion, contraband discarded by fleeing suspect FOPT not admissible ii) Unprovoked flight gives police reasonable suspicion No random stops of buses UNLESS reasonable suspicion or PC i) Police may board an already stopped bus Police Radio Broadcasts i) General Rule: Not enough to stop and frisk ii) Exceptions: Police are able to establish: (1) The information is reliable or (2) Officer has other independent basis for establishing reasonable suspicion May not impose alcohol/drug testing on students in extracurricular activities Convos recorded by wire tapping 3rd party or P.O. using recording devices = OK no REP, includes: (1) Phone conversations by informant to home AND convos by a patient seeing a doctor in his office w/ a wire tap ii) Wired 3rd Party sent into Ds home to record = Search: warrant and probable cause

d) e)

f)

g)

h)

i)

j) k)

l) m)

6) Search and Seizure Similarities (Where PA follows the federal rule) a) Informants use TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES to analyze whether P.C. exists based on info from Inf. b) Roadblocks use of roadblocks as long as part of a SYSTEMATIC program = OK i) Not searches: statements & materials submitted to insurance company OR ii) Nonfinancial personal information held by bank (ex: name, address) c) School Searches Sutdents have very limited Exp. Of Privacy in the school setting d) Public schools allowed to: (1) Use dogs to conduct a surprise saftey check of lockers (2) Use handheld metal detectors to search sutdents for weapons upon entering the building (3) DRUG AND ALCOHOL testing may not be imposed as a condition of extracurriculars or driving privileges e) Anticipatory Search Warrants (based on affidavit that ev. will be found sometime in the future) are OK BUT the factual averment must still be reliabel and probative to convince R.P. ev. Will be found f) Plain Touch Exception = OK, not violitve of privacy notions g) Knock & Announce required before entering w/ warrant, absent exingent circumstances i) Fed. Law does allows evidence obtained after violating this law to be admissible, PA has never had the opp. To decide this

3 h) Investigative Stops i) Unprovoked flight at the approach of P.O. = factor for reasonable suspicion to justify stop ii) Only reasonable suspicion articulable and reasonable Sus. needed to pull someone over for a DUI iii) Search incident to a stop for vehicle code violation P.C. (also needed to pull someone over) i) Open Fields landowners have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to fields and woods outside their curtilage. (even if no trespassing sign is posted) 7) Miranda Warnings Art. I 9 a) Waiver must be explicit i) Found explicit waiver where D refused to sign a written copy of his statement where he had already signed a waiver of rights card prior to giving statement b) Use totality of the Circumstances to determine whether juvie is competant to waive his miranda rights(no presumption, like Fed., that a minor who has not consulted w/ an interested adult is incompetant) i) Whether he has had the opportunity to consult with an interested & informed adult is one factor c) Silence at time of arrest cannot be used to impeach at trial d) DUI Field Sobriety Test does not require Miranda warnings prior to PO compelling person to perform b/c the nonverbal behavior is not testimonial in nature 8) Rights of Accused Specifically Provided for in PA Constition a) Right to confront Witness specifically allows child testimony by video b) Right to Counsel violated w/ admission of prisoners statement to jailhouse informant(agent of gov) c) Trial By Jury i) Also for property owners in in rem property forfeiture cases ii) Entitled to 12 person jury if requested, but GA may provide by law that verdict can be rendered by 5/6 vote in jury case iii) Right to Poll Jury after a verdict in a criminal case iv) Commonwealth can demand jury trial (not just D) even if D has pleaded guilty d) Double Jeopardy prohibits retrial if (Art. I 10): i) Prosecutorial misconduct is intended to provoke mistrial (same as Fed.) AND ii) Prosecutors conduct intentionally undertaken to prejudice D to the point of the denial of a fair trial (so this can be invoked by court, doesnt need to be raised by D) e) Cruel & Unusual Punishment i) victim impact statement during sentencing ALLOWED ii) Inmate Rights & Antipsychotic drugs D cannot refuse to take meds that would render him competent to participate in trial 9) Free Speech a) Strict scrutiny applies b) Reputation is a PA constitutional right 10) State Action yet to be determined w/ certainty if PA holds non-gov. actor liable for Individual Rights, BUT a) Insurance company has been held to violate the equal protection clause of the PA constitution, in holding gender-based auto insurance violated EP b) All other times, state action is required