Pennsylvania Appellate Law Update - Superior Court of Pennsylvania applies the Exclusionary Rule.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently vacated a defendant’s sentence and reversed his convictions for Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Receiving Stolen Property and Possession of Firearms. The case of Commonwealth v. Bowens, 2020 Pa Super 9, presents a look at the tension between effective policing and the protections provided against unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. 

After his trial, Mr. Bowens was convicted of the offenses and sentenced to 15 ? to 31 ? years in prison. Mr. Bowens was a passenger in a car that was pulled over by the State Police for driving erratically. The State Trooper observed the driver of the car reach toward the glove box. During the stop, the Trooper learned that both of the men in the car had outstanding arrest warrants. 

The trooper took the driver and Mr. Bowens in to custody, confiscating Mr. Bowens’ phone in the process. After obtaining a warrant to search the car, detectives found a firearm, heroin, and drug paraphernalia in the glove box. The detectives then applied for a search warrant for Mr. Bowens’ phone. 

The warrant for Mr. Bowens’ phone was issued, but it was only effective for forty-eight hours. It would then expire. Detectives extracted information from the phone, including text messages and pictures that implicated Mr. Bowens in the crimes for which he was charged. However, they completed the extraction after the warrant for Mr. Bowens’ phone expired. 

Bowens’ lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence found on his phone. The trial court denied this motion. Bowens was then convicted of the offenses. He appealed, arguing that the evidence collected from his phone should have been inadmissible, as the search warrant had expired by the time that the search was executed. He argued, in effect, that the trial court erred by not applying the exclusionary rule. 

The exclusionary rule is a tool that a court uses to ensure that the government complies with the protections of the Fourth Amendment. The Amendment states that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. It also states that a search warrant must be backed by probable cause. The exclusionary rule states that, where the government violates those principles, any evidence produced from that search and seizure is excluded from the trial. That evidence becomes “the fruit of the poisonous tree.” 

There are exceptions to the rule, however. Where there are exigent circumstances, or if the evidence is likely to be lost or disposed of before a warrant can be obtained, the rule will not apply. Exigent circumstances can also be based on the fact that evidence was in the plain view of an officer. Also, if an officer is conducting a search of a suspect incident to arrest, the officer need not obtain a warrant. 

The Superior Court, in reversing the trial court, stated that none of the exceptions to the exclusionary rule applied. The court also stated that the admission of the evidence found in Bowes’ phone was not harmless error by the trial court, as the court could not determine that the error could not have contributed to the conviction. The court also stated that the extraction from the phone after the search warrant expired was not a mere technical violation, stating that “The failure to abide by a search warrant’s requirements—requirements that are judicially-mandated so as to ensure protection of constitutional rights—are not “technical violations of the rules of criminal procedure.”

The court also reversed the trial court’s conclusion that Mr. Bowers’ was in constructive possession of the firearm in the glove box, because the driver, not he, had the key to the box. The court remanded Mr. Bowers’ conviction for conspiracy for a new trial, however. 

This case highlights the importance of the exclusionary rule – Mr. Bowers’ conviction and sentence of up to 31 years in prison were reversed. The case also speaks to the importance of the government’s adherence to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and the protections that it guarantees.