exigent circumstances exception in Pennsylvania

2025“Exceptions to the warrant requirement include the consent exception, the plain view exception, the inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances exception, the automobile exception …, the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident to arrest exception.” Commonwealth v. Simonson, 148 A.3d 792, 797 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025“Exceptions to the warrant requirement include the consent exception, the plain view exception, the inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances exception, . . . the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident to arrest exception.” Commonwealth v. Simonson, 148 A.3d 792, 797 (Pa. Super. 2016) (some formatting altered and citation omitted).

2025Although McNeely is a plurality decision in part, unless otherwise noted, the cited portions of McNeely are sourced from the portions of the Court’s opinion that received the joinder of a majority of the Justices. 76 Id. at 149-50 . 77 Id. at 150 ; see also id. at 151 (“[O]ur analysis in Schmerber fits comfortably within our case law applying the exigent circumstances exception.

2025Although McNeely is a plurality decision in part, unless otherwise noted, the cited portions of McNeely are sourced from the portions of the Court’s opinion that received the joinder of a majority of the Justices. 76 Id. at 149-50 . 77 Id. at 150 ; see also id. at 151 (“[O]ur analysis in Schmerber fits comfortably within our case law applying the exigent circumstances exception.

2025Instead, it upholds Wisconsin’s law on an entirely different ground—citing the exigent circumstances doctrine.” Id. 123 Id. at 844 (plurality). 124 See id. at 858-61 (Thomas, J., concurring); see also Birchfield, 579 U.S. at 496-99 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); McNeely, 569 U.S. at 176-83 (Thomas, J., dissenting). [J-43-2024] - 35 of the United States “decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, ‘the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the nar

2025Instead, it upholds Wisconsin’s law on an entirely different ground—citing the exigent circumstances doctrine.” Id. 123 Id. at 844 (plurality). 124 See id. at 858-61 (Thomas, J., concurring); see also Birchfield, 579 U.S. at 496-99 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); McNeely, 569 U.S. at 176-83 (Thomas, J., dissenting). [J-43-2024] - 35 of the United States “decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, ‘the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the nar

2012Moreover, “[a] 11 decisions made pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception must be made cautiously, for it is an exception which by its nature can very easily swallow the rule unless applied in only restricted circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Daniels, 421 A.2d 721, 725 (Pa. Super. 1980).

1993See also: United States v. Blasco, 702 F.2d 1315, 1325 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 914 , 104 S.Ct. 275 , 78 L.Ed.2d 256 (1983); Commonwealth v. Holzer, supra, 480 Pa. at 102 , 389 A.2d at 106 . *481 Terms like "exigent circumstances" or "urgent need" are useful in underscoring the heavy burden on the police to show that there was a need that could not brook the delay incident to obtaining a warrant, and that it is only in the light of those circumstances and that need that the warrantless search meets the ultimate test of avoiding condemnation under the Fourth Amendment as "unreaso

2023These exceptions include “the consent exception, the plain view exception, the inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances exception, the automobile exception, ... the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident to arrest exception.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 285 A.3d 328, 332 (Pa.Super. 2022) (citation omitted).

2023These exceptions include “the consent exception, the plain view exception, the inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances exception, the automobile exception, ... the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident to arrest exception.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 285 A.3d 328, 332 (Pa.Super. 2022) (citation omitted).

2018See Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2173 (2016) (“The exigent circumstances exception allows a warrantless search when an emergency leaves police insufficient time to seek a warrant.”); Commonwealth v. Gatlos, 76 A.3d 44, 56 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“exigent circumstances may provide an exception to the warrant requirement in what are essentially emergency situations created by those exigent circumstances”); see also Commonwealth v. Ritcher, 791 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2002) (en banc). “[A]ll decisions made pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception must be made cautiously, for it is

2008Furthermore: The burden is on the Commonwealth to “present clear and convincing evidence *557 that the circumstances surrounding the opportunity to search were truly exigent ... and that the exigency was in no way attributable to the decision by the police to forego seeking a warrant.” Moreover, “[a]ll decisions made pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception must be made cautiously, for it is an exception which by its nature can very easily swallow the rule unless applied in only restricted circumstances.” Commonwealth v. English, 839 A.2d 1136, 1141 (Pa.Super.2003) (quoting Commonwealth

2025That scheme is centered on legally specified BAC limits for drivers—limits enforced by the BAC tests promoted by implied- consent laws. 111 108 Mitchell, 588 U.S. at 846 (plurality) (quoting Petition for Certiorari). 109 Id. at 843. 110 Id. at 844. 111 Id. at 846-47. [J-43-2024] - 32 The Mitchell plurality then turned to the grounds for its decision—the exigent circumstances doctrine.

2025That scheme is centered on legally specified BAC limits for drivers—limits enforced by the BAC tests promoted by implied- consent laws. 111 108 Mitchell, 588 U.S. at 846 (plurality) (quoting Petition for Certiorari). 109 Id. at 843. 110 Id. at 844. 111 Id. at 846-47. [J-43-2024] - 32 The Mitchell plurality then turned to the grounds for its decision—the exigent circumstances doctrine.

2019The Birchfield Court did not question the continuing validity of applying exigent circumstances analysis to Fourth Amendment warrant requirements in DUI cases, noting that Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), “adopted a case-specific analysis depending on ‘all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case.’” Birchfield, 136 S.Ct. at 2173 .

2018See also Schmerber , 384 U.S. at 770 , 86 S.Ct. at 1835 (finding that based on the facts and circumstances of that case, the arresting officer " might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened the destruction of evidence") (emphasis added).

2018See Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2173 (2016) (“The exigent circumstances exception allows a warrantless search when an emergency leaves police insufficient time to seek a warrant.”); Commonwealth v. Gatlos, 76 A.3d 44, 56 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“exigent circumstances may provide an exception to the warrant requirement in what are essentially emergency situations created by those exigent circumstances”); see also Commonwealth v. Ritcher, 791 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2002) (en banc). “[A]ll decisions made pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception must be made cautiously, for it is

2016However, decisions made pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement "must be made cautiously because it is an exception which by its nature can very easily swallow the rule unless applied in only restricted circumstances." Commonwealth v. Bostick, 958 A.2d 543 (Pa.Super.2008), appeal denied 987 A.2d 158 , 604 Pa. 702 . 1 S, The possibility that a search made simultaneously with an a nest may uncover some · hidden evidence is not sufficient to permit such a search.

2024Ohio 1977)). 42 Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 394 (1978)); see Alexander, 243 A.3d at 207-09. [J-6-2024, 85 MAP 2023] - 18 for official action and no time to secure a warrant.’” 43 If there is any reason whatsoever to believe that the contents of a specific vehicle pose some sort of danger to a police officer or the public, and if there develops some compelling need for the officer to enter the vehicle in order to abate that danger, then nothing precludes the officer’s resort to the exigent circumstances exception.

2018However, "[t]he mere fact that law enforcement may be made more efficient can never by itself justify disregard of the Fourth Amendment." Mincey v. Arizona , 437 U.S. 385 , 393, 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978).

2020See Commonwealth v. Williams, 602 A.2d 350, 354 (Pa.Super. 1992) (“Essentially, the exigent circumstances exception involves balancing the needs of law enforcement against individual liberties and/or rights.

2013Some factors will outweigh others in a given case.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 411 Pa.Super. 586 , 602 A.2d 350, 354 (1992).

2008Furthermore: The burden is on the Commonwealth to “present clear and convincing evidence *557 that the circumstances surrounding the opportunity to search were truly exigent ... and that the exigency was in no way attributable to the decision by the police to forego seeking a warrant.” Moreover, “[a]ll decisions made pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception must be made cautiously, for it is an exception which by its nature can very easily swallow the rule unless applied in only restricted circumstances.” Commonwealth v. English, 839 A.2d 1136, 1141 (Pa.Super.2003) (quoting Commonwealth

2008Furthermore: The burden is on the Commonwealth to “present clear and convincing evidence *557 that the circumstances surrounding the opportunity to search were truly exigent ... and that the exigency was in no way attributable to the decision by the police to forego seeking a warrant.” Moreover, “[a]ll decisions made pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception must be made cautiously, for it is an exception which by its nature can very easily swallow the rule unless applied in only restricted circumstances.” Commonwealth v. English, 839 A.2d 1136, 1141 (Pa.Super.2003) (quoting Commonwealth

2026This Court has explained that “[s]uch exceptions include the consent exception, the plain view exception, the inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances exception, the automobile exception[,] the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident to arrest exception.” Commonwealth v. McMahon, 280 A.3d 1069, 1072 (Pa.Super. 2022) (cleaned up).

2024The "well well delineated exceptions" to exceptions" to the the warrant requirement include warrant requirement include `the the consent consent exception, exception, the the plain view exception, plain view exception, the the inventory search exception, inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances the exigent circumstances exception, exception, the automobile exception the automobile exception ... ... the stop and the stop and frisk exception, and frisk exception, and the search incident the search to arrest incident to arrest exception."" exception."' Commonwealth y v. McMahon, 280

2024Ohio 1977)). 42 Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 394 (1978)); see Alexander, 243 A.3d at 207-09. [J-6-2024, 85 MAP 2023] - 18 for official action and no time to secure a warrant.’” 43 If there is any reason whatsoever to believe that the contents of a specific vehicle pose some sort of danger to a police officer or the public, and if there develops some compelling need for the officer to enter the vehicle in order to abate that danger, then nothing precludes the officer’s resort to the exigent circumstances exception.

2020This matter concerns the exigent circumstances doctrine.1 1 In Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the exigent circumstances doctrine refers to an exception to the warrant requirement applicable where “the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” McNeely, 569 U.S. at 148 -49 (quoting Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011)).

2024Justice Saylor, commenting in Perry about prior decisions stating that Section 8 requires a showing of both probable cause and exigency in every case, cogently remarked that it did not “appear to have been the Court’s intent to dilute the exigent circumstances requirement by defining it solely in terms related to the development of probable cause.” Perry, 798 A.2d at 719 (Saylor, J., concurring).

2020However, the opinion acknowledged that our cases have “nevertheless required both probable cause and exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search, and, at least in broad overview, it would not appear to have been the Court's intent to dilute the exigent circumstances requirement by defining it solely in terms related to the [J-51-2020] - 10 development of probable cause.” Id. (citation to Luv omitted).

2021Some factors will outweigh others in a given case.” Johnson, 68 A.3d at 937 (citation omitted).

2021Some factors will outweigh others in a given case.” Johnson, 68 A.3d at 937 (citation omitted).

2019See Schneckloth , 412 U.S. at 248-49 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 ("Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances."); Birchfield , 136 S.Ct. at 2186 ("voluntariness of consent to a search must be 'determined from the totality of all the circumstances' ") (quoting Schneckloth , 412 U.S. at 227 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 ).

2019See Schneckloth , 412 U.S. at 248-49 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 ("Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances."); Birchfield , 136 S.Ct. at 2186 ("voluntariness of consent to a search must be 'determined from the totality of all the circumstances' ") (quoting Schneckloth , 412 U.S. at 227 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 ).

2002However, “[a]ll decisions made pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception [to the warrant requirement] must be made cautiously, for it is an exception which by its nature can very easily swallow the rule unless applied in only restricted circumstances.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Conn, 377 Pa.Super. 442 , 547 A.2d 768, 770 (1988)). ¶ 10 “Before agents of the government may invade the sanctity of the home, the burden is on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances that overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to all warrantless home entries.” Commonwealth v. S

2002However, “[a]ll decisions made pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception [to the warrant requirement] must be made cautiously, for it is an exception which by its nature can very easily swallow the rule unless applied in only restricted circumstances.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Conn, 377 Pa.Super. 442 , 547 A.2d 768, 770 (1988)). ¶ 10 “Before agents of the government may invade the sanctity of the home, the burden is on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances that overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to all warrantless home entries.” Commonwealth v. S

2025Whether exigent circumstances nevertheless require that the warrantless blood draw be upheld is an independent issue. 160 158 Id. at 418-19. 159 Prado, 960 N.W.2d at 879. 160 Mitchell, 588 U.S. at 870 n.5 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). [J-43-2024] - 46 To be clear, it may very well be that the circumstances of this case could have independently established that the seizure of Hunte’s blood was justified by an exigency, along the lines of that discussed by the Mitchell plurality.

2022The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected this very argument just last year in State v. Prado, 960 N.W.2d 869 (Wis. 2021).

2022Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 , 583–90, 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 1378–82, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 , 648–53 (1980).

2002See id. ¶ 9 In reviewing the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, this Court has recognized that “some situations present a compelling need for instant arrest, and that delay to seek a warrant will endanger life, limb, or overriding law enforcement interests.

2022See Commonwealth v. Riedel, 651 A.2d 135, 141 (Pa. 1994) (explaining that the exigent circumstances exception does not apply where there is “no danger that [a suspect’s] blood alcohol content would evanesce because it was preserved by [a] medical purposes blood test”).

2015At the outset, Appellant is incorrect to claim that Pennsylvania’s implied consent law is based solely upon the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement and “time’s dissipating effect on the evidence.” Rather, implied consent laws – such as Pennsylvania’s implied consent law – were enacted for a variety of reasons, including: “to address the hazard of impaired drivers on public roads,” Todd v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 723 A.2d 655, 658 (Pa. 1999); “to facilitate [the] prosecution of chemically impaired drivers,” Riedel, 651 A.2d at 141 ; “to

2004“Other factors may also be taken into account, such as whether there is hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, a likelihood that evidence will be destroyed if police take the time to obtain a warrant, or a danger to police or other persons inside or outside the dwelling.” Commonwealth v. Richter, supra, 791 A.2d at 1184-85 . (quotations and citations omitted) In dissent, Judge Johnson noted that “[a]ll decisions made pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception [to the warrant requirement] must be made cautiously, for it is an exception which by its nature can very easily swallow the rule unless a

2004“Other factors may also be taken into account, such as whether there is hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, a likelihood that evidence will be destroyed if police take the time to obtain a warrant, or a danger to police or other persons inside or outside the dwelling.” Commonwealth v. Richter, supra, 791 A.2d at 1184-85 . (quotations and citations omitted) In dissent, Judge Johnson noted that “[a]ll decisions made pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception [to the warrant requirement] must be made cautiously, for it is an exception which by its nature can very easily swallow the rule unless a

2020See Commonwealth v. Miller, 724 A.2d 895 (Pa. 1999) (warrantless search upheld based on exigent circumstances where appellant’s history of drug use created reasonable belief appellant and wife - 11 - J-A21007-20 were inside residence and in need of assistance); Commonwealth v. Silo, 502 A.2d 173 (Pa. 1985) (exigent circumstances supported warrantless search of home where victim was last seen arguing with appellant, had not been seen or spoken to for twenty four hours, and did not report for work).

2005See Commonwealth v. Witman, 750 A.2d 327 (Pa.Super.Ct.2000) (protective sweep); Commonwealth v. Miller, 555 Pa. 354 , 724 A.2d 895 (1999) (exigent circumstances).

2018See Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2173 (2016) (“The exigent circumstances exception allows a warrantless search when an emergency leaves police insufficient time to seek a warrant.”); Commonwealth v. Gatlos, 76 A.3d 44, 56 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“exigent circumstances may provide an exception to the warrant requirement in what are essentially emergency situations created by those exigent circumstances”); see also Commonwealth v. Ritcher, 791 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2002) (en banc). “[A]ll decisions made pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception must be made cautiously, for it is

2004“Other factors may also be taken into account, such as whether there is hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, a likelihood that evidence will be destroyed if police take the time to obtain a warrant, or a danger to police or other persons inside or outside the dwelling.” Commonwealth v. Richter, supra, 791 A.2d at 1184-85 . (quotations and citations omitted) In dissent, Judge Johnson noted that “[a]ll decisions made pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception [to the warrant requirement] must be made cautiously, for it is an exception which by its nature can very easily swallow the rule unless a