Earlier this month, a panel of the Superior Court recognized reasonable limitations on a police officer’s ability to initiate “official investigations.” The opinion correctly analyzes 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4914, but dicta in the opinion raises questions about Pennsylvania’s recognition of passengers in motor vehicles Fourth Amendment rights. In Commonwealth v. Barnes, the defendant was a passenger in a vehicle pulled over for multiple air fresheners obstructing the driver’s view. During the traffic stop, the police officer asked the passenger-defendant for identification and he orally provided a name and date of birth. When the police officer did a computer check with that information, the results indicated no record of that person. The officer returned to the car and again requested identification. The passenger-defendant provided the same name, but a different date of birth. However, there still was no record. The officer approached the car for a third time, informed the passenger-defendant that he was the subject of an “official investigation,” and again requested identification. The passenger-defendant gave the same information as the second time the officer asked. Without anything else, the officer arrested the passenger-defendant for false identification to law enforcement authorities in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4914. The trial court dismissed the charges and, in a surprisingly lengthy opinion, the Superior Court affirmed this dismissal. Section 4914 requires the individual be informed that he or she is the subject of official investigation of a violation of law prior to furnishing the false identification. In Barnes, the Superior Court held that “the subject-of an-official-investigation-of-a-violation-of-law element cannot be met by being ‘under investigation’ for providing false identification during the questioning preceding the issuance of the warning.” Barnes is important because it arguably holds that the “investigation” the officer originally conducted, regarding objects hanging from the rearview mirror, did not apply to the passenger. This ruling contradicts federal caselaw that holds all occupants of a motor vehicle are subject to detention when a car is pulled over. In Barnes, the Superior Court reasons “. . that under Fourth Amendment law, unless the stop was accompanied by reasonable suspicion that appellee was in violation of the law or that criminal activity was afoot, the interaction between appellee and [the officer] was a “mere encounter” and imposed no duty upon appellee to even interact with [the officer].” However, the Supreme Court of the United States has explicitly held that passengers of motor vehicles stopped for investigation are “seized” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the stop. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 255 (2007). See also Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979); Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996) (recognizing passenger standing without explicitly stating it). The seizure involved in a traffic stop is more than a “mere encounter” but less th an arrest and therefore requires reasonable suspicion to stop. The section of the Barnes opinion that addresses the Fourth Amendment is not necessary to the decision because the opinion clearly alternative bases for the ruling. Additionally, the holding in Barnes is not inconsistent with the Brendlin because the language of § 4914 requires that the citizen in question be “the subject of an official investigation” and a passenger is not the “subject” of investigation where the investigation deals with motor vehicle code violations (i.e., a passenger does not receive a ticket for the driving ignoring a stop sign). However, although this portion of the opinion may reasonably be considered dictand non-binding, its inclusion raises questions about how Brendlin will be applied in Pennsylvania courts. Barnes‘ holding is certainly pro-defendant, but the implications of its Fourth Amendment discussion erode rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Read Commonwealth v. Barnes here. Read Brendlin v. California here.
Pennsylvania Superior Court Dicta Weighs in on Passengers in Motor Vehicle Stops
On Behalf of Hark and Hark | Feb 23, 2011 | Firm News |
Categories
- Blog (36)
- Criminal Defense (47)
- Drug Crimes (30)
- Dui (20)
- Federal Crimes (13)
- Firm News (306)
- Injuries (6)
- Medical Nursing (56)
- Pennsylvania Criminal Law (34)
- Philadelphia Criminal Justice Updates (13)
- Professional License Application (37)
- Professional License Issues (173)
- Professional Misconduct (5)
- Substance Abuse (1)
- Uncategorized (2)
- USMLE and ECFMG (3)
Archives
- November 2023 (2)
- October 2023 (4)
- September 2023 (1)
- August 2023 (2)
- July 2023 (3)
- June 2023 (3)
- May 2023 (2)
- April 2023 (3)
- March 2023 (3)
- February 2023 (3)
- January 2023 (2)
- December 2022 (4)
- November 2022 (3)
- October 2022 (3)
- September 2022 (2)
- August 2022 (4)
- July 2022 (4)
- June 2022 (5)
- May 2022 (2)
- April 2022 (2)
- March 2022 (3)
- February 2022 (4)
- January 2022 (2)
- December 2021 (3)
- November 2021 (2)
- October 2021 (3)
- September 2021 (2)
- August 2021 (4)
- July 2021 (3)
- June 2021 (3)
- May 2021 (3)
- April 2021 (2)
- March 2021 (3)
- February 2021 (3)
- January 2021 (4)
- December 2020 (4)
- November 2020 (5)
- October 2020 (3)
- September 2020 (8)
- July 2020 (3)
- June 2020 (5)
- May 2020 (2)
- April 2020 (8)
- March 2020 (9)
- February 2020 (7)
- January 2020 (4)
- December 2019 (8)
- November 2019 (5)
- October 2019 (6)
- September 2019 (1)
- August 2019 (3)
- July 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (3)
- May 2019 (5)
- April 2019 (6)
- March 2019 (4)
- February 2019 (5)
- January 2019 (7)
- December 2018 (10)
- November 2018 (8)
- October 2018 (7)
- September 2018 (5)
- August 2018 (6)
- July 2018 (3)
- June 2018 (8)
- May 2018 (5)
- April 2018 (1)
- March 2018 (2)
- February 2018 (2)
- January 2018 (4)
- December 2017 (2)
- November 2017 (5)
- October 2017 (3)
- September 2017 (2)
- August 2017 (4)
- July 2017 (3)
- June 2017 (6)
- May 2017 (2)
- April 2017 (3)
- March 2017 (2)
- February 2017 (1)
- January 2017 (5)
- November 2016 (3)
- October 2016 (5)
- September 2016 (2)
- August 2016 (5)
- July 2016 (1)
- June 2016 (1)
- May 2016 (1)
- April 2016 (2)
- March 2016 (3)
- February 2016 (4)
- January 2016 (2)
- November 2015 (3)
- October 2015 (2)
- September 2015 (3)
- August 2015 (1)
- July 2015 (3)
- June 2015 (3)
- May 2015 (2)
- April 2015 (4)
- March 2015 (3)
- February 2015 (1)
- January 2015 (2)
- December 2014 (1)
- November 2014 (3)
- October 2014 (1)
- September 2014 (2)
- August 2014 (2)
- July 2014 (2)
- June 2014 (5)
- May 2014 (3)
- April 2014 (5)
- March 2014 (2)
- February 2014 (1)
- January 2014 (2)
- December 2013 (3)
- November 2013 (5)
- October 2013 (4)
- September 2013 (2)
- July 2013 (3)
- June 2013 (3)
- May 2013 (5)
- April 2013 (2)
- February 2013 (1)
- January 2013 (1)
- December 2012 (2)
- November 2012 (1)
- October 2012 (7)
- September 2012 (2)
- August 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (1)
- June 2012 (1)
- May 2012 (1)
- April 2012 (1)
- February 2012 (3)
- January 2012 (2)
- September 2011 (1)
- August 2011 (1)
- June 2011 (2)
- May 2011 (1)
- April 2011 (2)
- March 2011 (2)
- February 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (3)
- November 2010 (2)
- October 2010 (1)
- September 2010 (1)
- August 2010 (3)