search incident to arrest 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).

2025Officer Lacorte first watched as Charles and Jenkins were approached by a Hispanic male (Perez), observed all three males have a “brief conversation . . . standing together,” and then watched Jenkins and Perez walk to the side of the building where the alleged drug transaction ____________________________________________ 7 “The search incident to arrest exception allows arresting officers, in order to prevent the arrestee from obtaining a weapon or destroying evidence, to search both the person arrested and the area within his immediate control.” Commonwealth v. Simonson, 148 A.3d 792, 799 (Pa

2022In Birchfield, the Supreme Court of the United States concluded that “the search incident to arrest doctrine does not justify the warrantless taking of a blood sample[.]” Birchfield, 136 S.Ct. at 2185 .

2022In Birchfield, the Supreme Court of the United States concluded that “the search incident to arrest doctrine does not justify the warrantless taking of a blood sample[.]” Birchfield, 136 S.Ct. at 2185 .

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).

2023It cites as instructive Commonwealth v. Taylor, 771 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 2001) (OAJC), a case involving the search incident to arrest exception where the suspect was in handcuffs at the time of the search.

2015Commonwealth v. Taylor, 771 A.2d 1261, 1271 (Pa. 2001) The Supreme Court of the United States and this court have held that the scope of a search incident to arrest extends not only to the arrestee’s person, but also into the area within the arrestee’s “immediate control.” While the breadth of the area that falls within the arrestee’s “immediate control” has been the subject of much debate, a warrantless search must be “strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.” The two historical rationales for the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement are

2023Lutz, 270 A.3d at 579-80 ; Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1198 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Simonson, 148 A.3d 792, 799 (Pa. Super. 2016).

2023Furthermore, this “exception to warrantless searches permits police to search an arrestee’s person as a matter of course, without a case-by-case adjudication of whether such search is likely to protect officer safety or evidence.” Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1198 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc) (emphasis added; citation omitted).

2020Because the government’s interest in obtaining the evidence is substantial, and because the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine encompasses a recognition of the necessity of preventing the loss or “destruction” of evidence, id. at 2182 (citing Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969)), the Court held that “the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving.” Id. at 2184.

2016Birchfield v. North Dakota, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2160, 2174-2175 , 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) (some internal quotations and citations omitted). 6 The search incident to arrest exception allows “arresting officers, in order to prevent the arrestee from obtaining a weapon or destroying evidence, [to] search both the person arrested and the area within his immediate control.” 7 Id. at 2175 (internal quotations omitted); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969).

2025Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Lutz, 270 A.3d 571, 579-80 (Pa. Super. 2022) (“The search incident to arrest exception allows arresting officers, in order to prevent the arrestee from obtaining a weapon or destroying evidence, to search both the person arrested and the area within his immediate control.” (emphasis and citation omitted)).

2023Lutz, 270 A.3d at 579-80 ; Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190, 1198 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Simonson, 148 A.3d 792, 799 (Pa. Super. 2016).

2023In Commonwealth v. Shiflet, 670 A.2d 128, 131-32 (Pa. 1995), our Supreme Court held that the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement did not justify the warrantless search of a passenger’s purse under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2015See also Commonwealth v. Shiflet, 670 A.2d 128, 132 (Pa. 1995) (recognizing the search incident to arrest exception as a “reasonable intrusion for the protection of police officers [who may conduct] a search of the person arrested and the immediate area which the person occupies during his or her custody”); Commonwealth v. Henkel, 452 A.2d 759, 764 (Pa. Super. 1982) (in a search incident to arrest, arresting officers may search the person and area within reach of the suspect, in the interest of preserving the safety of those making the arrest).

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).

2023Commonwealth v. McMahon, 280 A.3d 1069, 1072 (Pa.Super. 2022).

2025After a detailed historical discussion of that doctrine, the Birchfield Court emphasized precedents holding that the fact of a lawful arrest authorizes “a full search of the person,” and that this authority is categorical, i.e., there is no case-by-case assessment of the need for a search incident to arrest. 91 In Riley v. California, moreover, the Court made clear that, when considering the applicability of the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine to novel situations that could not have been envisioned when the Fourth Amendment was adopted, the inquiry requires an assessment of, “on the one han

2025Because the governmental interest in obtaining BAC evidence from drunk drivers is strong, and because implied consent laws that incentivize drivers to provide such evidence “serve a very important function,” the Birchfield Court concluded that a 92 Id. at 460-61 (quoting Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 , 385 (2014)). 93 Id. at 461 (quoting Skinner, 489 U.S. at 626 ). 94 Id. at 461-63. 95 Id. at 463. 96 Id. at 464. [J-43-2024] - 28 categorical authorization for some form of BAC testing was warranted under the search- incident-to-arrest doctrine. 97 The Court concluded: Having assessed the eff

2020See Commonwealth v. Ford, 650 A.2d 433, 439 (Pa. 1994). - 11 - J-A21005-20 (emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. Wilson, 622 A.2d 293, 295 (Pa. Super. 1993) (“Reasonable suspicion is [] less demanding [] than probable cause[,] can be established with information that is different in quantity or content[, and] can arise from information that is less reliable[.]”).

2017Commonwealth’s Brief at 15 (citing Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 , 111–112 (1980) (“Where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search of petitioner’s person, we do not believe it particularly important that the search preceded the arrest rather than vice versa”)); Commonwealth v. Ford, 650 A.2d 433, 439 (Pa. 1994) (“Since probable cause to arrest existed and a formal arrest is not required in order to seize physical (not testimonial) evidence linking a defendant to a crime,” suppression of clothes was unwarranted where police had probable cause but the Appellee

2018The “administration of a blood test . . . performed by an agent of, or at the direction of the government” constitutes a search under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. -3- J-S18009-18 Commonwealth v. Kohl, 532 Pa. 152 , 615 A.2d 308, 315 (1992); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966).

2018The “administration of a blood test . . . performed by an agent of, or at the direction of the government” constitutes a search under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. -3- J-S18009-18 Commonwealth v. Kohl, 532 Pa. 152 , 615 A.2d 308, 315 (1992); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966).

2019It is well established that a search is reasonable when the subject consents, e.g. , Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218 , 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), and that sometimes consent to a search need not be express but may be fairly inferred from context, cf. Florida v. Jardines , 569 U.S. 1 , 133 S.Ct. 1409 , 1415-16, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013) ; Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. , 436 U.S. 307 , 313, 98 S.Ct. 1816 , 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978).

2019It is well established that a search is reasonable when the subject consents, e.g. , Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218 , 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), and that sometimes consent to a search need not be express but may be fairly inferred from context, cf. Florida v. Jardines , 569 U.S. 1 , 133 S.Ct. 1409 , 1415-16, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013) ; Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. , 436 U.S. 307 , 313, 98 S.Ct. 1816 , 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978).

2019It is well established that a search is reasonable when the subject consents, e.g. , Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218 , 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), and that sometimes consent to a search need not be express but may be fairly inferred from context, cf. Florida v. Jardines , 569 U.S. 1 , 133 S.Ct. 1409 , 1415-16, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013) ; Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. , 436 U.S. 307 , 313, 98 S.Ct. 1816 , 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978).

2019It is well established that a search is reasonable when the subject consents, e.g. , Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218 , 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), and that sometimes consent to a search need not be express but may be fairly inferred from context, cf. Florida v. Jardines , 569 U.S. 1 , 133 S.Ct. 1409 , 1415-16, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013) ; Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. , 436 U.S. 307 , 313, 98 S.Ct. 1816 , 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978).

2019It is well established that a search is reasonable when the subject consents, e.g. , Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218 , 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), and that sometimes consent to a search need not be express but may be fairly inferred from context, cf. Florida v. Jardines , 569 U.S. 1 , 133 S.Ct. 1409 , 1415-16, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013) ; Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. , 436 U.S. 307 , 313, 98 S.Ct. 1816 , 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978).

2019It is well established that a search is reasonable when the subject consents, e.g. , Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218 , 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), and that sometimes consent to a search need not be express but may be fairly inferred from context, cf. Florida v. Jardines , 569 U.S. 1 , 133 S.Ct. 1409 , 1415-16, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013) ; Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. , 436 U.S. 307 , 313, 98 S.Ct. 1816 , 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978).

2014We will first address the search incident to arrest exception, which “permits an arresting officer without a warrant to search an arrestee’s person and the area within his immediate control only for personal property immediately associated with the arrestee.” Stem, 96 A.3d at 410 (citing, inter alia, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969) (holding that where a search is conducted pursuant to a lawful arrest, “[t]here is ample justification … for a search of the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’ – construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he m

2014We will first address the search incident to arrest exception, which “permits an arresting officer without a warrant to search an arrestee’s person and the area within his immediate control only for personal property immediately associated with the arrestee.” Stem, 96 A.3d at 410 (citing, inter alia, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969) (holding that where a search is conducted pursuant to a lawful arrest, “[t]here is ample justification … for a search of the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’ – construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he m

2008See Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 116 (1998).

2001Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 116 , 119 S.Ct. 484 , 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998).

2024See Commonwealth v. Williams, 305 A.3d 89, 97 (Pa. Super. 2023) (“The search incident to arrest exception allows arresting officers, in order to prevent the arrestee from obtaining a weapon or destroying evidence, to search both -6- J-S15007-24 the person arrested and the area within his immediate control.”) (quotation omitted).

2024Smith, 285 A.3d at 332 . -6- J-S44028-23 “The plain view doctrine provides that evidence in plain view of the police can be seized without a warrant.” Commonwealth v. Luczki, 212 A.3d 530, 546 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).