PA Constitutional Law

Question 1

How do state constitutions work in conjunction with the federal constiutiton?

Answer 1

State constitutions can provide MORE protections to their own citizens than the federal constitution, but NOT LESS

Question 2

SCOTUS Review of State Decisions: “Adequate and Independent State Grounds” Doctrine

Answer 2

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

Question 3

PA Constitution History Analysis Answer - “PA Independent History”

Answer 3

PA constitutional provisions have its own INDEPENDENT HISTORY that predates the federal constitution, which may justify a different result than the federal precedent

Question 4

Edmunds Decision: Holding

Answer 4

PASC rejected the federal “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule under PA Constitution

Question 5

Edmunds Decision: Four Point Procedure in Raising a Constitutional Claim Under PA Constitution + Remember Failure to Raise These Factors

Answer 5

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

Question 6

PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Bank Records (Federal v. PA)

Answer 6

Federal: No privacy expectations for bank records

PA: Requires probable cause, UNLESS (i) nonfinancial personal information held by bank, or (ii) insurance information

Question 7

PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Automatic Standing for Possessory Offenses (Federal v. PA)

Answer 7

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)

Question 8

PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Pen Registers (Federal v. PA)

Answer 8

Fed: No privacy expectation in numbers dialed

PA: Warrantless search of pen registers violates increased privacy of PA constitution

Question 9

PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Blood Alcohol Data + Remember D’s Right to Criminal Liability for Blood Test

Answer 9

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

Question 10

PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Canine Sniffs (Fed v. PA) + Standards

Answer 10

Fed: Not a search

PA: Is a search - 1) For a person, PROBABLE CAUSE is needed, 2) for a place, REASONABLE SUSPICION is needed

Question 11

PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Good Faith Exception (Fed v. PA) + Rationale

Answer 11

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

Question 12

PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Frisks and Fleeing Suspects Standards (Fed v. PA)

Answer 12

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

Question 13

PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Random Stop of a Bus (Fed v. PA) + Remember Boarding Bus

Answer 13

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

Question 14

PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Police Radio Broadcasts (Fed v. PA) + PA Exceptions

Answer 14

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

Question 15

PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - School Drug Testing in Extracurriculars (Fed v. PA) + PA Exceptions

Answer 15

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

Question 16

PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Knock and Announce (Fed v. PA)

Answer 16

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

Question 17

PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Particularity of a Warrant (Fed v. PA)

Answer 17

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

Question 18

PA Con Law Decisions: Departure from Federal Precedent - Surveillance in the Home

Answer 18

Government MAY NOT send wired information into D’s home to electronically record conversation

Question 19

PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Informants Test

Answer 19

Totality of the circumstances

Question 20

PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Roadblocks

Answer 20

Allowed as a part of systemic program

Question 21

PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - School Locker Searches

Answer 21

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

Question 22

PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Anticipatory Search Warrants

Answer 22

Permissible if factual averment is RELIABLE and PROBATIVE as to likelihood evidence will be found

Question 23

PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Plain Touch Exception

Answer 23

Does not violate privacy notions under PA Constitution

Question 24

PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Investigative Stops for Unprovoked Flights

Answer 24

Unprovoked flights can be a factor in considering reasonable suspicion

Question 25

PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Investigative Detentions Standard (Asking for ID)

Answer 25

A police requires to see ID, in and of itself, DOES NOT elevate the encounter from mere encounter to investigative detention (which requires suspicion)

Question 26

PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Automobile Searches + Remember Curtilage

Answer 26

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

Question 27

PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Protective Search During Drug Bust + Standard to Search

Answer 27

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

Question 28

PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Open Fields

Answer 28

Landowners have NO reasonable expectation of privacy in the land outside of the curtilage of the home, despite no trespassing signs

Question 29

PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Wired Informants Outside of the Home + Remember Surveillance in Doctor's Office & Telephone Conversations

Answer 29

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

Question 30

PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Inmates Rights for Using Drugs to Make Him Competent

Answer 30

Mentally incompetent inmates MAY NOT refuse drugs intended to make him competent to participate in judicial proceedings

Question 31

PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Parolee Rights

Answer 31

Parolee not entitled to exclude evidence obtained AFTER WARRANTLESS SEARCH in probation and parole revocation proceedings

Question 32

PA Con Law Decisions: Adopting Federal Minimum - Cell Phones Protection

Answer 32

Any search of a cell phone requires a warrant

Question 33

Miranda: PA Departs from Federal Precedent - Waiver (Fed v. PA)

Answer 33

Fed: Explicit waiver NOT REQUIRED PA: Must be explicit (e.g., nod, writing, etc.)

Question 34

Miranda: PA Departs from Federal Precedent - Silence to Impeach Credibility at Time of Arrest (Fed v. PA)

Answer 34

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

Question 35

Miranda: PA Adopts Federal Minimum - Waiver of Rights by Juveniles Test

Answer 35

Totality of the circumstances will determine whether juvenile has knowingly waived his rights and made a voluntary confession

Question 36

Miranda: PA Adopts Federal Minimum - Right to Counsel - Jailhouse Informants

Answer 36

D's statement to a jailhouse informant sent in by law enforcement is a government agent, violating 6A right to counsel

Question 37

Miranda: PA Adopts Federal Minimum - Right to Counsel - Waiver of Right to Defend Oneself

Answer 37

Court has discretion to DENY D's request to proceed pro se if D's request is untimely

Question 38

Right to Trial: PA Departs Federal Precedent - In Rem Forfeitures

Answer 38

Owners of property entitled to JURY TRIAL

Question 39

Right to Trial: PA Departs Federal Precedent - Jury Size (Fed v. PA)

Answer 39

Fed: No constitutional right to a 12-member jury, minimum is 6 PA: Party is ENTITLED TO 12 member jury if requested (SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT)

Question 40

Right to Trial: PA Departs Federal Precedent - Right to Jury Trial Invoked by Commonwealth

Answer 40

Commonwealth CAN INVOKE right to jury trial in CRIMINAL CASE, even if individual waives it

Question 41

Right to Trial: PA Adopts Minimum - Right to Confront Witnesses

Answer 41

Literal face-to-face confrontation is NOT REQUIRED in all cases, such as child victim's testifying via closed circuit TV

Question 42

Right to Trial: PA Adopts Minimum - Right to Be Present During Voir Dire

Answer 42

Right to be present at "all critical stages" DOES NOT extend to sidebar conversations during voir dire

Question 43

Right to Trial: PA Adopts Minimum - Right To Poll Jury

Answer 43

No right to poll jury after a verdict in a CRIMINAL CASE

Question 44

Double Jeopardy: PA Depart from Federal Precedent - Prosecutorial Bad Faith (Fed v. PA)

Answer 44

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

Question 45

Cruel and Unusual Punishment: PA Adopts Federal Minimum - Victim Impact Statements

Answer 45

Victim impact statements at sentencing is NOT cruel and unusual punishment

Question 46

Cruel and Unusual Punishment: PA Adopts Federal Minimum - Juvenile and Mandatory Life Sentences

Answer 46

Life sentences without parole for juveniles are NOT CATEGORICALLY BANNED, as long as age-related facts are considered