Legal Update – Pennsylvania Supreme Court – Non-Ownership Alone Is Not Sufficient Evidence for Lack of Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (REOP) in a Vehicle Search

Our criminal defense law firm represents people charged with crimes in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  While these two states border each other, they have very different laws pertaining to a person’s right against search and seizure.  In Pennsylvania, police, in most situations need a search warrant to conduct a vehicle search whereas in New Jersey warrantless searches are permitted.  Pre-Trial motions focused on the issue of illegal search and seizure are often the strongest tools for the defense in cases involving illegal drugs, narcotics and firearms 

Why Reasonable Expectation of Privacy is Important to Your Criminal Case

These suppression motions are critical to any criminal defense!  Your criminal defense lawyer must have a strong command of this concept!  A defendant, however, cannot assert an illegal search and seizure argument unless the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (REOP) in the area search, this is also known as standing.  To establish a reasonable expectation of privacy (REOP), a defendant must first demonstrate “a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search, and then demonstrate that society [is] willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable.”

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision – Com v. Anderson

Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on this issue.  The Superior Court had previously affirmed a trial court decision which found that the prosecution only had to establish non ownership to satisfy the issue that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy (REOP) and therefore no standing to assert the constitutional right against illegal search and seizure. 

In Commonwealth v. Anderson, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Superior Court, holding that a driver of a car who did not own it did not have a REOP entitling him to a decision on the merits of his suppression claim

The Court held that the Commonwealth (prosecution) has initial burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy and non ownership itself IS NOT enough.  The Court found that lawful possession alone equals REOP, and prosecution has to offer more evidence to show that a lack of REOP.  The prosecution, however, can establish lack of a REOP with sufficient circumstantial evidence. Basically, ownership is not a prerequisite to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Irrespective of whether the defendant owns the property at issue, a legitimate privacy interest may nonetheless arise from the defendant’s lawful possession or control of the item in question.

The Court found that there are any number of plausible scenarios under which a driver may lawfully possess a car registered to someone else:

the registered owner could have specifically lent the car to the driver;

• the owner and driver may have an ongoing agreement allowing the driver to use the car;
• they could be members of the same household with an implicit arrangement to share the vehicle;
• the driver could have rented the car from the owner;
• the driver could have rented the car from someone else in good faith;
• an additional lawful possessor of the car besides the owner could have given the driver permission to use it;
• the owner could have abandoned the car;
• or the car could have been sold or otherwise

If you are charged with a drug or gun crime in Pennsylvania, it is very important that your criminal defense lawyer evaluate the case and particularly the issue of illegal search and seizure.  This could be your strongest defense argument. 

Our firm wishes you and your family a safe Summer season!

For more information on how we can assist you, a friend, or family member, please contact our office and visit our free download section for more information.

Contact Our Criminal Defense Lawyers in PA & NJ

Please click here to contact our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers. We offer free case reviews and serve the following areas in Pennsylvania and New Jersey,  Atlantic City, Camden, Cherry Hill, Chester, Conshohocken, Doylestown, Media, Norristown, Philadelphia, Pottstown, Salem, Upper Darby, Upper Merion, Upper Providence, Vineland & Woodbury areas.