Duquesne Law Review
Abstract
The United States Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court both recognize an "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement pursuant to their respective constitutions. In 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the federal automobile exception. Under the federal automobile exception, police can search a vehicle without a warrant where probable cause exists. In 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overruled its 2014 decision, and announced its official departure from federal standard. Now, police can search a vehicle without a warrant only upon a showing of both probable cause and exigent circumstances.
Adding an exigency component to the warrantless search requirement is not the problem. Rather, the problem is that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court does not provide a definition, standard, or even slight guidance for defining exigency. Instead, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court defaults to a case-by-case assessment for determining whether the facts of a case rise to the level of exigency.
Under a case-by-case assessment, what rises to a level of exigency is in the eye of the beholder. Motorists, police officers, and trial judges will face the consequences of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision to omit a bright-line standard for determining whether a situation permits a police officer to conduct a lawful, warrantless search. The current case-by-case assessment will increase speculation of police officers' decision making, and trial courts will render inconsistent rulings. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court should take its next opportunity to establish a bright-line rule but, at the very least, provide specific guidance on defining exigent circumstances.
First Page
308
Recommended Citation
Josephine L. Mlakar,
Running a Red Light: How Pennsylvania Rushed to Its Destination and Failed to Define "Exigent Circumstances" in Commonwealth v. Alexander,
61
Duq. L. Rev.
308
(2023).
Available at:
https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol61/iss2/8