PA Constitutional Law Flashcards
How do state constitutions work in conjunction with the federal constiutiton?
State constitutions can provide MORE protections to their own citizens than the federal constitution, but NOT LESS
SCOTUS Review of State Decisions: “Adequate and Independent State Grounds” Doctrine
Federal court has NO jurisdiction to review decisions of highest state courts IF based on state grounds that are:
1) Adequate - sufficient to decide the case, and
2) Independent - not dependent on federal law
PA Constitution History Analysis Answer - “PA Independent History”
PA constitutional provisions have its own INDEPENDENT HISTORY that predates the federal constitution, which may justify a different result than the federal precedent
Edmunds Decision: Holding
PASC rejected the federal “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule under PA Constitution
Edmunds Decision: Four Point Procedure in Raising a Constitutional Claim Under PA Constitution + Remember Failure to Raise These Factors
1) TEXT of applicable provision (how does it compare to the federal constitution)
2) HISTORY and PA CASE LAW (how have courts in PA treated this provision?)
3) Related case law from OTHER STATES (what do they say in their constitution?)
4) POLICY CONSIDERATION (including unique state or local concern)
Remember: Failing to raise these factors is NOT fatal, but court strongly
PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Bank Records (Federal v. PA)
Federal: No privacy expectations for bank records
PA: Requires probable cause, UNLESS (i) nonfinancial personal information held by bank, or (ii) insurance information
PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Automatic Standing for Possessory Offenses (Federal v. PA)
Fed: No automatic standing for possessory offenses
PA: D charged w/ possessory offense HAS automatic standing to challenge illegal search IF: (i) legitimate expectation of privacy, AND (ii) standing (present at time of search, possessory interest in evidence seized, possession is an essential element of the case, OR proprietary interest in the premises)
PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Pen Registers (Federal v. PA)
Fed: No privacy expectation in numbers dialed
PA: Warrantless search of pen registers violates increased privacy of PA constitution
PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Blood Alcohol Data + Remember D’s Right to Criminal Liability for Blood Test
PA: Can collect blood alcohol tests pursuant to statute, BUT a warrant is required for access to blood taken for non-DUI purposes
Remember: D DOES NOT have a right to be informed that the test results could be the basis for criminal liability
PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Canine Sniffs (Fed v. PA) + Standards
Fed: Not a search
PA: Is a search - 1) For a person, PROBABLE CAUSE is needed, 2) for a place, REASONABLE SUSPICION is needed
PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Good Faith Exception (Fed v. PA) + Rationale
Fed: Officer’s good faith reliance on warrant is an exception to the exclusionary rule
PA: There is no “good faith exception”
Rationale: Heightened privacy protection under PA, this includes reliance on invalid search warrant AND expired arrest warrant
PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Frisks and Fleeing Suspects Standards (Fed v. PA)
Fed: Reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, police can stop someone, and reasonable suspicion of being armed and dangerous, police can frisk someone
PA: If no probable cause or reasonable suspicion, contraband discarded by fleeing suspect is FRUIT OF ILLEGAL SEIZURE
PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Random Stop of a Bus (Fed v. PA) + Remember Boarding Bus
Fed: Seizure of passenger on a bus is only unreasonable if person does not feel free to leave
PA: Absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, officers may NOT randomly stop a bus to conduct drug interdiction
Remember: Questioning a boarding passenger is NOT a seizure where: (i) officer’s boarded with driver’s permission, (ii) during scheduled stop, and (iii) spoke to each passenger in turn
PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Police Radio Broadcasts (Fed v. PA) + PA Exceptions
Fed: Broadcasts can supply probable cause/reasonable suspicion
PA: Information from police radio broadcasts MAY NOT be used to justify stop and frisk UNLESS (i) officer can establish that the info in the broadcast is RELIABLE, or (ii) independent basis exists for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - School Drug Testing in Extracurriculars (Fed v. PA) + PA Exceptions
Fed: Schools CAN test for drugs as condition of participation for extracurriculars
PA: Schools MAY NOT condition participation in extracurriculars on drug testing, UNLESS (i) actual showing of specific need for such policy (e.g. drug problem) AND (ii) basis for believing policy would address need
PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Knock and Announce (Fed v. PA)
Fed: No exclusion for violations of knock and announce rule
PA: Failure to knock and announce (absent exigent circumstances) violates PA constitution and evidence is excluded
PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Particularity of a Warrant (Fed v. PA)
Fed: “Mere specification of all information available”
PA: MORE specificity required - (i) “describing circumstances as nearly as can be,” and (ii) “actual and reasonable particularity” requirement limits government discretion
PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Surveillance in the Home
Government MAY NOT send wired information into D’s home to electronically record conversation
PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Informants Test
Totality of the circumstances
PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Roadblocks
Allowed as a part of systemic program
PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - School Locker Searches
Students have limited privacy for lockers, school officials may search in (i) surprise “safety checks” and (ii) hand-held metal detectors at entrance of building
PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Anticipatory Search Warrants
Permissible if factual averment is RELIABLE and PROBATIVE as to likelihood evidence will be found
PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Plain Touch Exception
Does not violate privacy notions under PA Constitution
PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Investigative Stops for Unprovoked Flights
Unprovoked flights can be a factor in considering reasonable suspicion
PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Investigative Detentions Standard (Asking for ID)
A police requires to see ID, in and of itself, DOES NOT elevate the encounter from mere encounter to investigative detention (which requires suspicion)
PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Automobile Searches + Remember Curtilage
With probable cause, police MAY conduct warrantless searches of automobile, exigent circumstances NOT REQUIRED
Remember: Automobile exception DOES NOT apply for vehicles on the curtilage of one’s home
PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Protective Search During Drug Bust + Standard to Search
Officer MAY NOT search effects of those present merely because they are on the premises for a narcotics search
Standard is REASONABLE SUSPICION to search for weapons under a totality of the circumstances
PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Open Fields
Landowners have NO reasonable expectation of privacy in the land outside of the curtilage of the home, despite no trespassing signs
PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Wired Informants Outside of the Home + Remember Surveillance in Doctor’s Office & Telephone Conversations
NO REOP for privacy in conversations outside of home
Doctor’s Offices: No REOP in work setting where patient-informant consented to wire
Telephone conversation: No REOP that telephone conversation is not recorded by parties on the other end, even if call is made INSIDE THE HOME
PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Inmates Rights for Using Drugs to Make Him Competent
Mentally incompetent inmates MAY NOT refuse drugs intended to make him competent to participate in judicial proceedings
PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Parolee Rights
Parolee not entitled to exclude evidence obtained AFTER WARRANTLESS SEARCH in probation and parole revocation proceedings
PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Cell Phones Protection
Any search of a cell phone requires a warrant
Miranda: PA Departs from Federal Precedent - Waiver (Fed v. PA)
Fed: Explicit waiver NOT REQUIRED
PA: Must be explicit (e.g., nod, writing, etc.)
Miranda: PA Departs from Federal Precedent - Silence to Impeach Credibility at Time of Arrest (Fed v. PA)
Fed: Silence at time of arrest CAN be used to impeach D’s trial testimony
PA: D’s silence at time of arrest CANNOT be used
Miranda: PA Adopts Federal Minimum - Waiver of Rights by Juveniles Test
Totality of the circumstances will determine whether juvenile has knowingly waived his rights and made a voluntary confession
Miranda: PA Adopts Federal Minimum - Right to Counsel - Jailhouse Informants
D’s statement to a jailhouse informant sent in by law enforcement is a government agent, violating 6A right to counsel
Miranda: PA Adopts Federal Minimum - Right to Counsel - Waiver of Right to Defend Oneself
Court has discretion to DENY D’s request to proceed pro se if D’s request is untimely
Right to Trial: PA Departs Federal Precedent - In Rem Forfeitures
Owners of property entitled to JURY TRIAL
Right to Trial: PA Departs Federal Precedent - Jury Size (Fed v. PA)
Fed: No constitutional right to a 12-member jury, minimum is 6
PA: Party is ENTITLED TO 12 member jury if requested (SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT)
Right to Trial: PA Departs Federal Precedent - Right to Jury Trial Invoked by Commonwealth
Commonwealth CAN INVOKE right to jury trial in CRIMINAL CASE, even if individual waives it
Right to Trial: PA Adopts Minimum - Right to Confront Witnesses
Literal face-to-face confrontation is NOT REQUIRED in all cases, such as child victim’s testifying via closed circuit TV
Right to Trial: PA Adopts Minimum - Right to Be Present During Voir Dire
Right to be present at “all critical stages” DOES NOT extend to sidebar conversations during voir dire
Right to Trial: PA Adopts Minimum - Right To Poll Jury
No right to poll jury after a verdict in a CRIMINAL CASE
Double Jeopardy: PA Depart from Federal Precedent - Prosecutorial Bad Faith (Fed v. PA)
Fed: No retrial ONLY when prosecutorial misconduct was INTENDED to provoke D into moving for a mistrial
PA: No retiral when prosecutorial misconduct was (i) intended to provoke D into moving for a mistrial, OR (ii) intentionally undertaken to prejudice D to the point where a fair trial is denied
Cruel and Unusual Punishment: PA Adopts Federal Minimum - Victim Impact Statements
Victim impact statements at sentencing is NOT cruel and unusual punishment
Cruel and Unusual Punishment: PA Adopts Federal Minimum - Juvenile and Mandatory Life Sentences
Life sentences without parole for juveniles are NOT CATEGORICALLY BANNED, as long as age-related facts are considered
