Summary
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considers whether a defendant charged with a possessory crime retains automatic standing under Article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution to challenge evidence obtained through an allegedly illegal search and seizure. The court compares federal Fourth Amendment developments, including United States v. Salvucci, with Pennsylvania’s independent constitutional protections.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution continues to grant automatic standing to a defendant charged with a possessory crime who seeks to suppress evidence allegedly obtained through an unlawful search and seizure.
- Whether Sell's charge of receiving stolen property, which includes possession, control, or title as part of the definition of receiving, entitled him to automatic standing.
- Whether the Superior Court's order denying standing should be reversed and the case remanded for consideration of the suppression claim's merits.
Holdings
- Article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution independently preserves automatic standing for a defendant charged with a possessory crime, notwithstanding the United States Supreme Court's abandonment of automatic standing under the Fourth Amendment.
- Receiving stolen property is a possessory offense because possession, control, or title is an essential component of receiving under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(b); therefore, Sell was entitled to automatic standing.
Key quotations
“We remain convinced that ownership or possession of the seized property is adequate to entitle the owner or possessor thereof to invoke the constitutional protection of Article I, section 8 by way of a motion to suppress its use as evidence.” (504 Pa. at 67-68)
“We therefore conclude that appellant is entitled to “automatic standing” under Article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution to maintain a motion to suppress.” (504 Pa. at 68)
Factual background
On December 11, 1978, Allentown police executed a search warrant at Games Galore, an amusement arcade operated in part by Sell. Police found firearms allegedly stolen in a recent burglary on open shelves beneath the counter in an area accessible to all employees. Sell was not present during the search, but was later charged with receiving stolen property and criminal conspiracy; the firearms supported the receiving-stolen-property charge.
Procedural history
Police searched Games Galore and seized firearms. Sell, charged with receiving stolen property and criminal conspiracy, moved to suppress the firearms because the search warrant was defective. The court of common pleas found automatic standing and suppressed the evidence. The Superior Court reversed, concluding that automatic standing was no longer viable and that Sell lacked actual standing. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted review, reversed the Superior Court, and remanded for consideration of the merits of Sell's suppression claim.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the Superior Court for consideration of the merits of Sell's suppression claim.