Search and seizure law under the United States Constitution is varied and complex. It generally arises in the context of the police finding evidence, such as drugs, and bringing a criminal case based on the evidence seized.   The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that a warrant is generally required when police search a person’s home or vehicle subject to many exceptions to that rule.  One of the issues that courts often face involve the legality of seizures of evidence that occur in houses or dwellings.  The case of Commonwealth v. Soto, 23 Phila. 132 (Pa. C.P. 1991) provides an illustration of the critical role of a warrant when police search a person’s home and seize evidence to be used in a Pennsylvania criminal prosecution.

In Soto, the Commonwealth sought review of an order that granted defendant’s motion to suppress certain physical evidence that was seized in a warrantless search incident to defendant’s arrest.  After defendant was arrested, the police conducted a warrantless search and recovered packets of heroin.  The court found that the Commonwealth made no claim that the warrantless search was consensual or that the property seized was abandoned both of which would have justified the lack of a warrant.

The court further held that although the Commonwealth presented testimony that the evidence was in plain view, such visibility did not convert the illegal entry into defendant’s home and subsequent search into legal ones. The court determined that the Commonwealth did not present any evidence that would have permitted the warrantless search under its claim that there were exigent circumstances (i.e. emergency).  The court reasoned that no evidence was presented as to why the five officers on the scene would not have been able to secure the house while a warrant was obtained. The court affirmed the order granting defendant’s motion to suppress the heroin.

The Soto case shows that courts place more scrutiny on warrantless search and seizures that occur in houses rather than searches of one’s person following an arrest on a public sidewalk.  The case also illustrates how certain warrant exceptions apply to a particular case.  If the defendant has agreed to allow the search (i.e. consensual search) or had discarded the drugs or drug paraphernalia in the garbage, the seizure might have been justified on the basis of abandonment depending on the location of the trash.  If the heroin had been discarded into the trash and subsequently placed on the curb, the seizure might have been permissible.

The prosecution also tried to use two other warrantless exceptions that were rejected.  The prosecutor claimed that the drugs were in plain view.  This defense was rejected because the prosecutor was basically bootstrapping.  The officers could not claim that the search was legal because the drugs were in plain view when the only reason the drugs were in plain view was because of the officers illegal entry into home without a warrant.

Finally, the government tried to assert that the exigent circumstances exception applied.  Ironically, this exception may have been made inapplicable by the arrest of the defendant.  The exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement typically applies to emergencies like someone being in physical danger or the immediate threat of destruction of the evidence.  Since the defendant was in custody and 5 officers were at the scene the officers could have preserved the scene to ensure no destruction of evidence occurred until a warrant could be obtained.

The heroin in this case was excluded which meant that the state did not have the critical evidence needed for a conviction.  Pennsylvania criminal defense attorney Michael V. Worgul frequently uses warrant violations to get critical evidence suppressed in criminal cases.  This strategy can be especially effective in cases involving drug offenses.

If you have been arrested and are facing criminal charges, the Pittsburgh criminal defense law firm of Michael V. Worgul may be able to seek dismissal or at least a reduction in the charges pending against you.  We offer a free initial case evaluation so that we can assess your case so contact us at 412-475-9217.