public servant exception in Pennsylvania

2023With respect to the public servant exception under Pennsylvania law, the Livingstone Court recognized that “the role of police is not limited to the detection, investigation, and prevention of criminal activity,” in that “officers engage in a myriad of activities that ensure the safety and welfare of our -8- J-S29040-23 Commonwealth’s citizens.” Livingstone, 174 A.3d at 629; see also Commonwealth v. Wilmer, 194 A.3d 564 , 569 (Pa. 2018) (noting the “wide variety” of community caretaking “laudable endeavors” expected of police officers relating to the health and safety of the citizenry in apply

2023With respect to the public servant exception under Pennsylvania law, the Livingstone Court recognized that “the role of police is not limited to the detection, investigation, and prevention of criminal activity,” in that “officers engage in a myriad of activities that ensure the safety and welfare of our -8- J-S29040-23 Commonwealth’s citizens.” Livingstone, 174 A.3d at 629; see also Commonwealth v. Wilmer, 194 A.3d 564, 569 (Pa. 2018) (noting the “wide variety” of community caretaking “laudable endeavors” expected of police officers relating to the health and safety of the citizenry in applyi

2024The Livingstone Court explained that “for a seizure to be justified under the public servant exception,” [(1)] the officer must point to specific, objective, and articulable facts which would reasonably suggest to an ____________________________________________ 4 See also Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884, 889 (Pa. 2000). -6- J-S06022-24 experienced officer that assistance was needed; [(2)] the police action must be independent from the detection, investigation, and acquisition of criminal evidence; and, [(3)] based on a consideration of the surrounding circumstances, the action taken by

2024The Livingstone Court explained that “for a seizure to be justified under the public servant exception,” [(1)] the officer must point to specific, objective, and articulable facts which would reasonably suggest to an ____________________________________________ 4 See also Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884, 889 (Pa. 2000). -6- J-S06022-24 experienced officer that assistance was needed; [(2)] the police action must be independent from the detection, investigation, and acquisition of criminal evidence; and, [(3)] based on a consideration of the surrounding circumstances, the action taken by

2024See Commonwealth v. Garibay, 106 A.3d 136, 139 (Pa.Super. 2014).

2024See Commonwealth v. Garibay, 106 A.3d 136, 139 (Pa.Super. 2014).

2019We caution, however, that “when the community caretaking exception is involved to validate a search or seizure, courts must meticulously consider the facts and carefully apply the exception in a manner that mitigates the risk of abuse.” [State v. McCormick, 494 S.W.3d 673, 688 (Tenn. 2016)].

2017See Lovegren, 51 P.3d at 475-76 (“as long as [J-112-2016] - 37 there are objective, specific and articulable facts from which an experienced officer would suspect that a citizen is in need of help or is in peril, then that officer has the right to stop and investigate”); Williams, 962 A.2d at 219 (if there are “objective, specific and articulable facts from which an experienced officer would suspect that a citizen is in apparent peril, distress or need of assistance, the police officer may stop and investigate for the purpose of assisting the person”); McCormick, 494 S.W.3d at 687 (community c

2019To explain: when the Livingstone Court addressed the community caretaking exception, the Court noted that it already ruled on the inventory - 21 - J-A02016-18 search exception, but that it had not yet addressed the two other exceptions in the community caretaking doctrine: In Commonwealth v. Lagenella [supra], 623 Pa. 434 , 83 A.3d 94, 103 (2013), this Court acknowledged the “community care-taking functions” of police when we considered the legality of an inventory search of a vehicle lawfully impounded pursuant to standard police policy.

2019However, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained, “[a]n inventory search is reasonable if it is conducted pursuant to reasonable standard police procedures and in good faith and not for the sole purpose of investigation.” Lagenella, 83 A.3d at 102-103 (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Livingstone, 174 A.3d at 637 (“so long as a police officer is able to point to specific, objective, and articulable facts which, standing alone, reasonably would suggest that his assistance is necessary, a coinciding subjective law enforcement concern by the officer will not ne

2017See State v. Ryon, 108 P.3d 1032, 1042 (N.M. 2005) (community caretaker exception encompasses three distinct doctrines: the emergency aid doctrine, the automobile impoundment and inventory doctrine, and the public servant doctrine); State v. Acrey, 64 P.3d 594, 600 (Wash. 2003) (en banc) (community caretaking function exception to the warrant requirement encompasses not only search and seizure of automobiles, but also situations involving either emergency aid or routine checks on health and safety); State v. Kurth, 813 N.W. 2d 270, 277 (Iowa 2012) (community caretaking activity consists of thr

2017See State v. Ryon, 108 P.3d 1032, 1042 (N.M. 2005) (community caretaker exception encompasses three distinct doctrines: the emergency aid doctrine, the automobile impoundment and inventory doctrine, and the public servant doctrine); State v. Acrey, 64 P.3d 594, 600 (Wash. 2003) (en banc) (community caretaking function exception to the warrant requirement encompasses not only search and seizure of automobiles, but also situations involving either emergency aid or routine checks on health and safety); State v. Kurth, 813 N.W. 2d 270, 277 (Iowa 2012) (community caretaking activity consists of thr

2018Our Supreme Court recently expounded upon the community caretaker doctrine 3 in Commonwealth v. Livingstone , 174 A.3d 609 , 634 (Pa. 2017), addressing for the first time "the public service or the emergency aid exceptions under the community caretaking doctrine." 4 , 5 Noting *633 that the United States Supreme Court first recognized a community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement in Cady v. Dombrowski , 413 U.S. 433 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained that the doctrine encompassed three specific exceptions: 1) the emergency aid except

2018Our Supreme Court recently expounded upon the community caretaker doctrine 3 in Commonwealth v. Livingstone , 174 A.3d 609 , 634 (Pa. 2017), addressing for the first time "the public service or the emergency aid exceptions under the community caretaking doctrine." 4 , 5 Noting *633 that the United States Supreme Court first recognized a community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement in Cady v. Dombrowski , 413 U.S. 433 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained that the doctrine encompassed three specific exceptions: 1) the emergency aid except

2023See Livingstone, 174 A.3d at 630, citing State v. Anderson, 362 P.3d 1232 , 1239-40 (Utah 2015) (concluding the seizure of a motorist stopped at the side of a highway in below-zero temperatures with his vehicle’s hazard lights on was “minimally invasive” because: (1) the vehicle was parked, not driving; (2) there was no excessive display of authority or force, including an absence of display or weapons or shouting of commands; and (3) the officer approached the motorist only long enough to approach his vehicle and ask whether he needed aid).

2017We specifically directed the parties to address the potential application of a community caretaking exception, see, e.g., State v. Anderson, 362 P.3d 1232 (Utah 2015) (holding that seizure of defendant who had stopped his car on the side of a rural highway at night and activated his vehicle’s hazard lights was justified under the public servant exception to the community caretaking doctrine), under these circumstances.

2023The court also determined that the search was covered under Pennsylvania’s automobile exception under the then-applicable precedent of Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) (plurality), which was later overruled by Commonwealth v. Alexander, 243 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2020).

2017Majority Opinion, slip op. at 11 (citing Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102, 106 (Pa. 2014)). [J-112-2016] [MO: Todd, J.] - 3 Specifically, I would find that these facts presented an objective basis for concluding that Appellant may have been in peril.

2023Id.; see also Gindraw, 297 A.3d at 853 (“Livingstone specifically rejected that … an investigation must be ‘totally divorced’ from the detection of criminal activity”).

2023Livingstone, 174 A.3d at 626-627; see also Gindraw, 297 A.3d at 851.

2023We note that, in general, probable cause exists where the totality of the circumstances shows that “the facts and circumstances within the police officer’s knowledge and of which the officer has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been committed by the person to be arrested.” Commonwealth v. Simmen, 58 A.3d 811 , 817 (Pa. Super. 2012).

2023We note that, in general, probable cause exists where the totality of the circumstances shows that “the facts and circumstances within the police officer’s knowledge and of which the officer has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been committed by the person to be arrested.” Commonwealth v. Simmen, 58 A.3d 811, 817 (Pa. Super. 2012).

2022Because interactions between law enforcement and the general citizenry are widely varied, search and seizure law looks at how the interaction is classified and if a detention has occurred. ____________________________________________ 8 See Commonwealth v. Livingstone, 174 A.3d 609 , 634 (Pa. 2017) (holding “in order for the public servant exception of the community caretaking doctrine to apply, police officers must be able to point to specific, objective, and articulable facts that would reasonably suggest to an experienced officer that a citizen is in need of assistance.”) (citations omitted)

2022Because interactions between law enforcement and the general citizenry are widely varied, search and seizure law looks at how the interaction is classified and if a detention has occurred. ____________________________________________ 8 See Commonwealth v. Livingstone, 174 A.3d 609 , 634 (Pa. 2017) (holding “in order for the public servant exception of the community caretaking doctrine to apply, police officers must be able to point to specific, objective, and articulable facts that would reasonably suggest to an experienced officer that a citizen is in need of assistance.”) (citations omitted)

2021Here, the suppression court did not address whether a seizure occurred when Trooper Lantzy first pulled to the side of the road to investigate the situation, but the court did acknowledge that Trooper Lantzy activated his emergency lights when he pulled behind Savino’s vehicle.7 The trial court relies on an unpublished memorandum decision, Commonwealth v. Robertson, 209 A.3d 1041 (Pa. Super. 2019) (Table), to conclude that Lantzy’s actions were justified under the public servant exception.

2021Cf. Robertson, supra. Moreover, the interaction between Trooper Lantzy and Savino occurred during the daytime and Savino had not otherwise indicated a need for assistance.11 Thus, we are constrained to hold that Trooper Lantzy’s seizure of Savino was not justified under the public servant exception, and, therefore, the evidence obtained as a result of that seizure should have been suppressed at trial.

2021See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wilson, 237 A.3d 572, 578 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“[T]he corporal displayed authority over [the defendant] which restrained his freedom of movement from the moment he turned his emergency lights and siren on.”); Commonwealth v. Venable, 200 A.3d 490, 499 (Pa. Super. 2018) (“Here, [the defendant] was subjected to a seizure when Sergeant Johnston activated his lights and sirens to conduct the traffic stop, notwithstanding [the defendant’s] failure to comply immediately[.]”) (quoting Livingstone, supra at 621 ). - 11 - J-A12028-21 Amendment when conducted pursuant to the pub

2021See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wilson, 237 A.3d 572, 578 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“[T]he corporal displayed authority over [the defendant] which restrained his freedom of movement from the moment he turned his emergency lights and siren on.”); Commonwealth v. Venable, 200 A.3d 490, 499 (Pa. Super. 2018) (“Here, [the defendant] was subjected to a seizure when Sergeant Johnston activated his lights and sirens to conduct the traffic stop, notwithstanding [the defendant’s] failure to comply immediately[.]”) (quoting Livingstone, supra at 621 ). - 11 - J-A12028-21 Amendment when conducted pursuant to the pub

2020“Thus, a dual inquiry, both parts requiring affirmative answers[,] must be made: first, whether there existed probable cause to search; and secondly, whether exigent circumstances can be found to excuse the obtaining of a warrant.” Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119, 137 (Pa. 2008) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).3 The Commonwealth’s substantive argument is succinct: Commonwealth respectfully submits that law enforcement officers not only possessed probable cause and exigent circumstances to justify their entry, but also were justified under the public servant exception to th

2019Moreover, the Livingstone Court specifically limited its holding to the public servant exception.6 ____________________________________________ 6 [We] first hold that, in order for the public servant exception of the community caretaking doctrine to apply, police officers must be able to point to specific, objective, and articulable facts that would reasonably suggest to an experienced officer that a citizen is in need of assistance. *** Second, we hold that, in order for the public servant exception of the community caretaking doctrine to apply, the police caretaking action must be independen

2019The public servant exception, the inventory search exception, and the emergency aid exception all fall under the same umbrella: the “community caretaking doctrine.” See id. at 626-627 ; see also, e.g., In Interest of M.W., supra, 194 A.3d at 1100-1101 (“As long as the search is pursuant to the caretaking functions of the police department, the conduct of the police - 19 - J-A02016-18 will not be viewed as unreasonable under the Constitution.”) (emphasis added).

2019The reasonableness inquiry must allow “for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving,” and take into consideration “that a combination of events each of which is mundane when viewed in isolation may paint an alarming picture.” Commonwealth v. Coughlin, --- A.3d ----, 2018 - 12 - J-A24026- 18 PA Super 304 , at 4 (Nov. 14, 2018) (en banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. Ford, 175 A.3d 985, 990 (Pa.Super. 2017), appeal denied, 190 A.3d 580 (Pa. 2018)).3 Here, Officer Fleagle testified that when he saw Ro

2019However, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained, “[a]n inventory search is reasonable if it is conducted pursuant to reasonable standard police procedures and in good faith and not for the sole purpose of investigation.” Lagenella, 83 A.3d at 102-103 (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Livingstone, 174 A.3d at 637 (“so long as a police officer is able to point to specific, objective, and articulable facts which, standing alone, reasonably would suggest that his assistance is necessary, a coinciding subjective law enforcement concern by the officer will not ne

2018See State v. Acrey, 148 Wash.2d 738 , 64 P.3d 594, 600 (2003) (en banc) (community caretaking function exception to the warrant requirement encompasses not only search and seizure of automobiles, but also situations involving either emergency aid or routine checks on health and safety).

2018In our recent decision in Livingstone, this Court observed that the community caretaking doctrine encompasses three specific exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s 8 See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973) (“[O]ne of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent.”). 9 See California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985) (stating that the automobile exception applies “[w]hen a vehicle is being used on the highways, or if it is readily capable of such use and is found stationary in a place

2017See State v. Ryon, 108 P.3d 1032, 1042 (N.M. 2005) (community caretaker exception encompasses three distinct doctrines: the emergency aid doctrine, the automobile impoundment and inventory doctrine, and the public servant doctrine); State v. Acrey, 64 P.3d 594, 600 (Wash. 2003) (en banc) (community caretaking function exception to the warrant requirement encompasses not only search and seizure of automobiles, but also situations involving either emergency aid or routine checks on health and safety); State v. Kurth, 813 N.W. 2d 270, 277 (Iowa 2012) (community caretaking activity consists of thr

2017See State v. Ryon, 108 P.3d 1032, 1042 (N.M. 2005) (community caretaker exception encompasses three distinct doctrines: the emergency aid doctrine, the automobile impoundment and inventory doctrine, and the public servant doctrine); State v. Acrey, 64 P.3d 594, 600 (Wash. 2003) (en banc) (community caretaking function exception to the warrant requirement encompasses not only search and seizure of automobiles, but also situations involving either emergency aid or routine checks on health and safety); State v. Kurth, 813 N.W. 2d 270, 277 (Iowa 2012) (community caretaking activity consists of thr