exigency requirement in Pennsylvania

2011What evidence satisfies the exigency requirement has been a matter of continued controversy. 9 In Baker and Rodriguez , the Supreme Court found the exigency requirement to be satisfied where, as a result of a lack of advance notice of the need to search for contraband in a vehicle, it was not “reasonably practicable” for the police to have obtained a warrant prior to the search. 10 In White and Luv , however, the Supreme Court appeared to add another requirement, namely that the Commonwealth also demonstrate that unless police conducted an immediate warrantless search of the vehicle (or impoun

2011What evidence satisfies the exigency requirement has been a matter of continued controversy. 9 In Baker and Rodriguez , the Supreme Court found the exigency requirement to be satisfied where, as a result of a lack of advance notice of the need to search for contraband in a vehicle, it was not “reasonably practicable” for the police to have obtained a warrant prior to the search. 10 In White and Luv , however, the Supreme Court appeared to add another requirement, namely that the Commonwealth also demonstrate that unless police conducted an immediate warrantless search of the vehicle (or impoun

2024See Commonwealth v. Trahey, 228 A.3d 520 , 530 (Pa. 2020) (stating that an exception to the warrant requirement exists when, coupled with probable cause, “the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable”) (quoting Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 149 (2013); id. (“Although an exigency may present itself in a variety of contexts, its defining trait is a “compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.”) (emphasis added) (quoting McNeely, 569 U.S. at 149 ). [J-5-2024] [MO: Dougherty, J.] -

2022Thus, the exigency exception applies “when the [J-41-2022] - 12 exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1558 (2013) (quoting Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1859 (2011)).

2024Simply put, Alexander is not applicable here because the police did not seize the handgun “upon the analytical underpinnings of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, but rather upon an application of the plain view exception.” McMahon, 280 A.3d at 1073 (quotation and quotation marks omitted).

2023Simply put, Alexander is not applicable here because the police did not seize the handgun “upon the analytical underpinnings of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, but rather upon an application of the plain view exception.” McMahon, 280 A.3d at 1073 (quotation and quotation marks omitted).

2017See generally Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 , 98 S.Ct. 1942 , 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978) (noting'that a search “may be legal when there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant[ ]"). .

2017See generally Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 , 98 S.Ct. 1942 , 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978) (noting'that a search “may be legal when there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant[ ]"). .

2014See Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 594 Pa. 319 , 935 A.2d 1275, 1280 (2007) (“Precisely what satisfies the exigency requirement for warrantless vehicle searches has been the subject of many of this Court’s opinions, some of which include multiple, varying expressions with no clear majority.”).

2014See Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 594 Pa. 319 , 935 A.2d 1275, 1280 (2007) (“Precisely what satisfies the exigency requirement for warrantless vehicle searches has been the subject of many of this Court’s opinions, some of which include multiple, varying expressions with no clear majority.”).

1999After a thorough review of the relevant case law in this area, we find that the suppression court applied the exigency exception doctrine too narrowly. ¶ 15 “Exigent circumstances arise where the need for prompt police action is imperative, either because evidence is likely to be destroyed, ... or because there exists a threat of physical harm to police officers or other innocent individuals.” Commonwealth v. Hinkson, 315 Pa.Super. 23 , 461 A.2d 616, 618 (1983); see also Commonwealth v. Luv, 557 Pa. 570 , 735 A.2d 87 , 1999 Pa.LEXIS 2188 (1999) (finding exigent circumstances where there was an

1999After a thorough review of the relevant case law in this area, we find that the suppression court applied the exigency exception doctrine too narrowly. ¶ 15 “Exigent circumstances arise where the need for prompt police action is imperative, either because evidence is likely to be destroyed, ... or because there exists a threat of physical harm to police officers or other innocent individuals.” Commonwealth v. Hinkson, 315 Pa.Super. 23 , 461 A.2d 616, 618 (1983); see also Commonwealth v. Luv, 557 Pa. 570 , 735 A.2d 87 , 1999 Pa.LEXIS 2188 (1999) (finding exigent circumstances where there was an

2005See: Commonwealth v. Rosenfelt, 443 Pa.Super. 616 , 662 A,2d 1131, 1146 (1995) (holding that “[a]bsent exigent circumstance apart from the car’s inherent mobility,” the officer should have obtained a search warrant); see also Gelineau, 696 A.2d at 192 n. 2 (“a proper warrantless search requires both probable cause and exigent circumstances other than the inherent mobility of the vehicle”).

2005See: Commonwealth v. Rosenfelt, 443 Pa.Super. 616 , 662 A,2d 1131, 1146 (1995) (holding that “[a]bsent exigent circumstance apart from the car’s inherent mobility,” the officer should have obtained a search warrant); see also Gelineau, 696 A.2d at 192 n. 2 (“a proper warrantless search requires both probable cause and exigent circumstances other than the inherent mobility of the vehicle”).

2005See: Commonwealth v. Rosenfelt, 443 Pa.Super. 616 , 662 A,2d 1131, 1146 (1995) (holding that “[a]bsent exigent circumstance apart from the car’s inherent mobility,” the officer should have obtained a search warrant); see also Gelineau, 696 A.2d at 192 n. 2 (“a proper warrantless search requires both probable cause and exigent circumstances other than the inherent mobility of the vehicle”).

2005See: Commonwealth v. Rosenfelt, 443 Pa.Super. 616 , 662 A.2d 1131, 1146 (1995) (holding that "[a]bsent exigent circumstance apart from the car's inherent mobility," the officer should have obtained a search warrant); see also Gelineau, 696 A.2d at 192 n. 2 ("a proper warrantless search requires both probable cause and exigent circumstances other than the inherent mobility of the vehicle").

2022Due to the nature of the question presented, both parties focus heavily on Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S.Ct. 2525 (2019), which is the most recent case from the United States Supreme Court to assess the exigency exception with respect to a DUI blood draw.

2022Due to the nature of the question presented, both parties focus heavily on Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S.Ct. 2525 (2019), which is the most recent case from the United States Supreme Court to assess the exigency exception with respect to a DUI blood draw.

2014See, e.g., Perry (plurality) (Cappy, C.J., Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court; Castille, J., concurring; Saylor, J., concurring; Nigro, J., dissenting); Commonwealth v. McCree, 592 Pa. 238 , 924 A.2d 621 (2007) (plurality) (Eakin, J., Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court; Cappy, C.J., concurring; Castille, J., concurring).

2014See, e.g., Perry (plurality) (Cappy, C.J., Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court; Castille, J., concurring; Saylor, J., concurring; Nigro, J., dissenting); Commonwealth v. McCree, 592 Pa. 238 , 924 A.2d 621 (2007) (plurality) (Eakin, J., Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court; Cappy, C.J., concurring; Castille, J., concurring).

2022Id. -6- J-S08018-22 Here, although Appellant did not argue exigency in his initial omnibus motion filed on November 16, 2018, we conclude that the issue was, in fact, raised in the trial court.

2021See Grooms, 247 A.3d at 37 n.8.

2014See Perry, supra at 720 (Saylor, J., concurring) (stating that “the United States Supreme Court eventually broadened the [automobile] exception by eliminating the exigency requirement, see California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 393 [ 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 ] (1985), while this Court has adhered to the original formulation”).

2014See Perry, supra at 720 (Saylor, J., concurring) (stating that “the United States Supreme Court eventually broadened the [automobile] exception by eliminating the exigency requirement, see California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 393 [ 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 ] (1985), while this Court has adhered to the original formulation”).

2024Indeed, both Gary and Alexander involved warrantless searches of closed containers and, when read against their facts, these decisions do not reach so far as to engraft an exigency requirement upon the plain view doctrine, which involves the seizure of property in public view that is immediately recognizable as contraband.2 As penned by former Chief Justice Saylor, “it is axiomatic that the holding of a judicial decision is to be read against its facts.” Lance v. Wyeth, 85 A.3d 434, 453 (Pa. 2014); see also Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh, 11 A.3d 960, 966 (Pa. 2011).

2024See Commonwealth v. Roland, 637 A.2d 269, 270-71 (Pa. 1994).

2024Indeed, both Gary and Alexander involved warrantless searches of closed containers and, when read against their facts, these decisions do not reach so far as to engraft an exigency requirement upon the plain view doctrine, which involves the seizure of property in public view that is immediately recognizable as contraband.2 As penned by former Chief Justice Saylor, “it is axiomatic that the holding of a judicial decision is to be read against its facts.” Lance v. Wyeth, 85 A.3d 434, 453 (Pa. 2014); see also Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh, 11 A.3d 960, 966 (Pa. 2011).

2023See Whorton, 549 U.S. at 416; Reid, 235 A.3d at 1154.

2022Although exigency arises in various circumstances, relevant to the issue today is exigent circumstances based upon “a likelihood that evidence will be destroyed if police take the time to obtain a warrant[.]” Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119, 138 (Pa. 2008).

2022It cannot be overlooked that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2482 (2014) (quotations omitted).

2014Even in the instant case, the Superior Court noted that “[t]he application of th[e] definition [of exigent circumstances] has unquestionably been difficult for the courts of this Commonwealth.” Commonwealth v. Gary, 29 A.3d 804, 807 (Pa.Super.2011).

2011Subsequent to White and Luv this Court has expressed a similar understanding of what is necessary to satisfy the exigency requirement under Pennsylvania’s limited automobile exception: “Exigent circumstances arise where the need for prompt police action is imperative, either because evidence is likely to be destroyed ... or because there exists a threat of physical harm to police officers or other innocent individuals.” Commonwealth v. Copeland, 955 A.2d 396, 400 (Pa.Super.2008) (quoting Commonwealth v. Stewart, 740 A.2d 712, 715 (Pa.Super.1999), affirmed, 568 Pa. 499 , 798 A.2d 697 (2002)), a

2011Subsequent to White and Luv this Court has expressed a similar understanding of what is necessary to satisfy the exigency requirement under Pennsylvania’s limited automobile exception: “Exigent circumstances arise where the need for prompt police action is imperative, either because evidence is likely to be destroyed ... or because there exists a threat of physical harm to police officers or other innocent individuals.” Commonwealth v. Copeland, 955 A.2d 396, 400 (Pa.Super.2008) (quoting Commonwealth v. Stewart, 740 A.2d 712, 715 (Pa.Super.1999), affirmed, 568 Pa. 499 , 798 A.2d 697 (2002)), a