Pa Conlaw

Front 1

How state conlaw works

Back 1

Under the Supremacy Clause – the US constitution and federal laws are the supreme law of the land. However, as long as a state “goes beyond” the federal Constitution and grants “more rights” (or an equal level of rights) to tis citizens, there is no Supremacy Clause violation. It has thus been said that the federal constitution sets a “floor,” or a minimum standard, below which states may not fall. However, states are free to go beyond that floor

Front 2

When the United States Supreme Court can Review (and overturn) State Decisions

Back 2

Under the “adequate and independent state grounds” doctrine, fed courts have no jxn to review decisions of the highest state courts if the decisions are based on some “adequate” (I.e. sufficient to decide the case) and “independent” (i.e. independent from federal law) state ground. Under current constitutional standards, if a state supreme court decision contains mixed references to state and federal law, SCOTUS will presume that the state court relied on federal precedent, thus SCOTUS would exercise jxn over the case. State courts must make a “plain statement” directly in their opinions that they are relying on state law, otherwise SCOTUS has the power to step in and overturn

Front 3

Limitation of Floor

Back 3

In noncriminal areas, giving someone more rights might decrease the rights of the others, therefore courts have to be careful when they’re balancing

Front 4

Departing from v. Following Federal Precedent

Back 4

When deciding a case pursuant to a provision of state constitution, a state court has two options:
1. It may depart from federal standard and hold that state constitution provides more right than fed constitution or
2. It may follow the federal standard, adopting it under state law and embracing it as the test to be used when analyzing a case pursuant to the state constitutional provision
NOTE: If making a ruling that PA approach is identical to federal rule, it is making new PA law that remains in place, even if federal law later changes

Front 5

The Edmunds Decision

Back 5

PA Supreme Court has mandated that lawyers raise, brief, and argue four separate factors in any case implicating a constitutional issue (applies to any criminal procedures issues, by definition). The four factors are
1. The TEXT of applicable state constitutional provision
2. The HISTORY of the provision, including relevant case law
3. The RELATED CASE LAW form other states and
4. The POLICY CONSIDERATIONS including unique issues of state and local concern.
Although failure to brief and argue these four factors are not fatal to a litigant, the court has strongly advised lawyers to adhere to its mandate

Front 6

Search and Seizure

Back 6

Art. 1 Section 8 of PA Constitution governs searches and seizures. It protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, and provides that a warrant to search any place or to seize any person or thing must include an adequate description and be based on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the affiant

Front 7

Privacy of Bank Records

Back 7

Under Art. 1, Sec. 8, authorities may not gain access to a depositor’s bank records on less than probable cause (rejects federal law)
Does not extend to statements and materials submitted to an insurance company or
To nonfinancial personal information held by a bank, such as depositor’s name and address

Front 8

Automatic Standing

Back 8

In PA, to challenge a warrantless search a person must prove BOTH a legitimate expectation of privacy and standing.
Under Art I. Sec. 8 a D charged with possessory offense has “automatic standing” to challenge the admissibility of evidence alleged to be fruit of an illegal search. - THUS DOES NOT FOLLOW FEDERAL LAW
However, a D with standing also must show a legitimate expectation of privacy and the driver of an automobile that was not registered to him and who lacked evidence that the had permission to drive the auto did not have legitimate expectation of privacy in the auto

Front 9

Automatic Standing Elements

Back 9

P was
1. Present at time of search
2. Had a possessory interest in the evidence improperly seized
3. Possession is an essential element of the prosecution’s case or
4. He had a proprietary interest in the premises searched

Front 10

Pen Registers

Back 10

Use of pen registers and dialed number recorders to monitor incoming or outgoing phone numbers dialed violates privacy notion of Art. I, Sec. 8.
Rejects federal law

Front 11

Informants

Back 11

Pa has adopted the federal “totality of circumstances” test of Illinois v. Gates for analyzing whether probable cause exists for search warrants based on information received from confidential informants

Front 12

Roadblocks

Back 12

The use of roadblocks as part of a systematic program of checking vehicles for drunk drivers does NOT violate the PA Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures
Files federal rule

Front 13

Blood Alcohol Data

Back 13

Although PA statute allows the police to obtain results form blood alcohol tests when the tests are procured pursuant to statute (specifically, when a police officer or medical provider suspects that a person was driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance the PA SC held that there was a violation of 1-8 when hospital turned over to a PO, without a warrant, the results of a BA test that was taken strictly for medical purposes rather than pursuant to the statute. Note that a person’s inability to consent to BA test does not render the results inadmissible if the test was ordered by PO pursuant to PA statute.
Does not follow federal rule

Front 14

Canine Sniffs

Back 14

Canine Sniffs of a person constitutes a search under 1-8 and must be supported by probable cause. However, canine search of a place (e.g. a storage locker) may be supported by a lesser showing of “reasonable suspicion” because a search is inherently less intrusive
Differs from federal rule

Front 15

Good Faith Search Warrant Exception

Back 15

PA does NOT recognize the “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule when a search is conducted pursuant to an invalid warrant

Front 16

Automobile Searches

Back 16

In PA, police may not conduct a warrantless search of an automobile absent exigent circumstances, after its occupants are arrested outside the automobile in police custody.
However, potential harm to police from a loaded weapon in a running vehicle constitutes exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search of the vehicle, even in the absence of occupants
Differs from Federal Rule

Front 17

Stops and Fleeing Suspects

Back 17

Under PA constitution, when a PO possesses neither “probable cause” to arrest nor “reasonable suspicion” to stop an individual and conduct a Terry frisk, contraband discarded by a fleeing suspect is the fruit on an illegal seizure
Differs from federal rule

Front 18

Random stop of bus

Back 18

1-8 prohibits the random stop of a passenger bus to conduct a drug interdiction and investigation in the absence or reasonable suspicion or probable cause. However, PO may board an already stopped bus to investigate
Rejects federal rule

Front 19

Police Radio Broadcasts

Back 19

In PA, info obtained form a police radio broadcast may NOT be used to justify a stop and frisk unless the PO is able to establish that the info obtained over the radio broadcast is:
Reliable or
The officer has an independent basis for establishing reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot
Rejects federal rule

Front 20

School Locker Searches

Back 20

1-8 was NOT violated when public high school officials used “drug-sniffing” dogs to conduct a surprise “safety check” of student lockers, because students had only a limited expectation of privacy within he school environment. Similarly, police may use hand-held metal detectors to search students for weapons while they enter a school building.
Students’ privacy interests are quite limited. THIS PART FOLLOWS FEDERAL RULE
However, drug and alcohol testing of high school students may not be imposed as a condition of extra-curricular activities – THIS PART DOES NOT.

Front 21

Anticipatory Search Warrants

Back 21

“Anticipatory search warrants” (i.e. warrants based on an affidavit indicating that evidence will be found at a place to be searched at some future time, are permissible under PA constitution
Also permissible federally

Front 22

Plain Touch Exception

Back 22

A “plain touch” exception to the warrant requirement does not violate privacy notions implicit in the state constitution

Front 23

Knock and Announce

Back 23

PA rule requiring police to knock and announce their presence before executing a search warrant, absent exigent circumstances, is consistent with 1-8.
However, no PA case decided after Hudson has determined whether PA will follow Hudson, which held that evidence obtained from a search violating the federal knock and announce rule is nevertheless admissible

Front 24

Investigative Stops

Back 24

Unprovoked flight at the approach of the police may be considered a factor in deciding whether reasonable suspicion existed to justify an investigative stop
Similar to Federal Rule

Front 25

Protective Search During Drug Bust

Back 25

In PA, PO’s are not permitted to search purses, handbags, etc. merely because officers are lawfully on premises to conduct a narcotics investigation, on theory that drug dealers and those associated with them often carry weapons.
Search must be reasonable under “totality of circumstances” test
Differs from federal rule

Front 26

Particularity of Warrant

Back 26

Under 1-8, more specificity is required to issue a warrant than might be required under 4th Amendment to US Constitution. Actual reasonable particularity is required sufficient to limit governmental discretion in the execution of the warrant. E.g. a warrant and complaint describing defendant only as “John Doe Steve” a white male, in his 30’s with unknown address, falls short of satisfying the standard

Front 27

Open Fields

Back 27

PA SC has embraced the federal open fields rule that landowners have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to fields and woods outside their curtilage

Front 28

Electronic Surveillance

Back 28

Under 1-8, conversations recorded by a wired informant or police officer using electronic equipment are admissible, because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in such convos.
This rule applies equally to recordation of phone conversations (telephone and even to conversations recorded by patient seeing a doctor (office surveillance)
However – police may NOT send an informant into the home of an individual to electronically record his convos and transmit them back to police
There is a REASONABLE EXPECATION OF PRIVACY in the home
Differs from federal rule

Front 29

Inmate Rights

Back 29

1-8 does not permit mentally incompetent inmate to refuse antipsychotic drugs designed to render that inmate competent to participate in judicial proceedings (here to enable death row inmate to determine if he wished to pursue post-conviction relief petition).
Consistent with a federal case

Front 30

Miranda Waiver

Back 30

PA requires an explicit waiver of Miranda Rights

Front 31

Juveniles Competency to Stand Trial

Back 31

Whether a juvenile is competent to waive his constitutional rights is evaluated under totality of circumstances test. Whether juvenile has had an opportunity to consult with an interested and informed adult is one factor in the equation
Follows federal rule

Front 32

Silence to Impeach Credibility

Back 32

A D’s silence (at the time of the arrest) cannot be used to impeach his testimony at trial
Differs from federal rule

Front 33

DUI Field Sobriety Test

Back 33

PA’s Constitution guaranty against self-incrimination does not mandate that Miranda rights be administered by a police officer prior to requiring an individual to perform a field sobriety test, because such a nonverbal test is not testimonial in nature

Front 34

Right To Confront Witnesses

Back 34

PA Constitution specifically permits statutes authorizing child testimony by video or closed-circuit TV

Front 35

Right to Counsel

Back 35

D-prisoner’s right to counsel was violated under both the sixth amendment and 1-9 by admission of incriminating statements made by the D-prisoner to a fellow inmate who turned out to be a jailhouse informant

Front 36

Forfeiture of Right to Counsel

Back 36

A D may forfeit his right to counsel and be ordered to proceed pro se when he engages in dilatory conduct by failing to seek and retain private counsel, despite having the opportunity and financial wherewithal to do so

Front 37

Waiver of Right to Defend Oneself

Back 37

D’s request to proceed pro se may be denied at court’s discretion if request is untimely (e.g. made after “meaningful proceedings have begun”)

Front 38

Trial By Jury

Back 38

1-6 of PA constitution guarantees a trial by jury

Front 39

In Rem Forfeitures of Trial By Jury

Back 39

Under 1-6, property owners are entitled to a jury trial in in rem property forfeiture actions

Front 40

Jury Size

Back 40

Under 1-6, person is entitled to 12-person jury if he so requests

Front 41

Right to Poll Jury After Criminal Verdict

Back 41

There is a right to poll the jury after a verdict in a criminal case

Front 42

Double Jeopardy

Back 42

Double Jeopardy Clause, 1-10, prohibits a retrial, not only when prosecutorial misconduct was intended to provoke the D into moving for a mistrial, but also “when the conduct of the prosecutor is intentionally undertaken to prejudice the D to the point of the denial of a fair trial”

Front 43

Victim Impact Testimony

Back 43

Introduction of victim impact testimony does not constitute crule and unusual punishment under 1-13 of the PA Const.

Front 44

State Action

Back 44

Certain rights under PA constitution (e.g. free speech, equal protection) do not contain language limiting them sot state action. PA SC has not yet addressed this specifically. But, one case, court held that gender-based automobile insurance violated equal rights amendment despite lack of state action