Persons that have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their homes are protected against searches by state actors, absent consent or exigent circumstances.
Parolees/Probationers have constitutional rights against unlawful searches and seizures.
Since Megan's Law IV became effective on December 20, 2012, there have been several decisions that have altered the Act's applicability in some cases.
In order to challenge the constitutionality of a police search, one must have "standing."
A person that provides the police with consent to search themselves, their car, or their home has just excused the police from obtaining a warrant.
By Attorney Elisabeth K.H. Pasqualini, Federal Crimes Defense Lawyer, Harrisburg, PA
Neither the United States Constitution nor the Pennsylvania Constitution precludes a warrantless search of property when consent is given by a person possessing the authority to consent to the search. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the greater privacy rights afforded by the Pennsylvania Constitution are sufficiently protected when the federal standard of voluntariness has been met.
What's the test for "voluntariness" of the consent?
The following factors favor a finding that consent was voluntary: (1) the defendant's background indicates his understanding of investigating procedures or his understanding of constitutional rights; (2) the suspect has aided an investigation or search; (3) the consenter believed the evidence to be so well concealed that it probably would not be found; (4) the fact of some prior cooperation by the consenter which produced no incriminating evidence; (5) the suspect felt that the best course of conduct was cooperation given that he was caught "red-handed"; (6) the presence of probable cause to arrest or search the suspect. No one factor in the voluntariness inquiry is controlling.
Remember, if you are ever stopped by the police, do not provide them with consent to search anything. Even if they tell you they will come back with a warrant- make them. They don't have to tell you that you don't have to consent.
The "collective knowledge" doctrine, sometimes called the "fellow officer rule" allows one officer to possess probable cause and impute it to other officers.
There is probable cause to arrest driver for DUI when officer detects strong odor of marijuana emanating from vehicle
Normally privileged conversations between a counselor and a child are not excluded from testimony at a child abuse expungement hearing.
Young offenders below the age of 13 were meant to be excluded from criminal conduct when they have engaged in consensual sexual intercourse
Expert was permitted to testify at trial as to why a child victim may delay in reporting sexual abuse.