The PA Superior Court recently put a finer point on the exigent circumstances required for police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle after a vehicle stop. COMMONWEALTH v. CAMACHO, No. 62 EDA 2024 (Pa Super. 09/10/2024).
In a previous decision, the PA Supreme Court “overruled prior precedent, rejected the federal automobile exception, and reasserted that ‘the Pennsylvania Constitution requires both a showing of probable cause and exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search of an automobile.’” Commonwealth v. Alexander, 243 A.3d 177, 181 (Pa. 2020).
Therefore, pursuant to Alexander, “[o]btaining a warrant is the default rule. If an officer proceeds to conduct a warrantless search, a reviewing court will be required to determine whether exigent circumstances existed to justify the officer’s judgment that obtaining a warrant was not reasonably practicable.”
In the Camacho case, the Superior Court followed the rule set forth in Alexander and distinguished Commonwealth v. Perry, 798 A.2d 697, (Pa. 2002) (wherein exigent circumstances were established by police showing that a car identified as having been involved in a recent shooting was stopped by police and “left running in the middle of the street” along with “the ‘fragile’ nature of the purported automatic weapon that posed ‘an immediate threat to any officer who attempted to move the vehicle ….’”)
In determining that exigent circumstances did NOT exist in Camacho, the Superior Court noted that “[a]fter reviewing the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, including the videotape, we conclude that the exigent circumstances in the form of danger to the police or public was no longer an issue at the time Trooper Gentile conducted the warrantless search. The vehicle was parked on the right side of a very wide shoulder. Neither Appellant—who was on the ground in two sets of handcuffs and surrounded by three officers—nor [a passenger,] Ms. Clark —who was handcuffed in the back of the troopers’ vehicle—could have accessed the vehicle. The fact that Appellant resisted arrest at some point is not relevant to whether at the time of the search the police officers or the public were in danger. (emphasis by the Court) In fact, the danger had ended when Appellant and Ms. Clark were detained and no longer able to access the vehicle.”
COMMONWEALTH v. CAMACHO, No. 62 EDA 2024 (Pa Super. 09/10/2024).
