June 13, 2026

The Court found: Pearsall was a lawful passenger. The driver lawfully possessed the rental vehicle. The vehicle was not stolen. The bag was under Pearsall’s seat. Pearsall’s identification was under the same seat. The bag was not out in the open and accessible to all occupants. The Commonwealth waived its abandonment theory. The Commonwealth preserved no other valid basis to justify the warrantless search. The Commonwealth did not dispute that the search was warrantless and lacked exigent circumstances. Based on those facts, the Court held that Pearsall had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag under his seat and affirmed the order granting suppression.

June 12, 2026

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that ordinary Google search records may not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy. Learn what Commonwealth v. Kurtz means for digital evidence and criminal defense in Pennsylvania.

June 11, 2026

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a gun conviction after a vehicle search in Commonwealth v. Anderson. Learn how reasonable expectation of privacy, traffic stops, protective sweeps, and inventory searches affected the ruling.

May 31, 2026

Police may find drugs, but that does not automatically prove a person intended to sell them. The defense may argue that the drugs were for personal use, that the person did not know the drugs were there, that the drugs belonged to someone else, or that police violated the person’s constitutional rights during the search.

May 30, 2026

In Philadelphia practice, video evidence can be decisive, but it is not automatic and it is not perfect. The Philadelphia Police Department’s body-worn-camera directive requires activation during vehicle and pedestrian investigations and requires officers to note in reports when an incident was captured. At the same time, Philadelphia oversight audits have found that policy compliance is imperfect, which means gaps, late activation, and missing footage can become important suppression and credibility issues.

May 24, 2026

Pennsylvania courts have recognized that flight may be considered as evidence of consciousness of guilt when connected with other proof. But courts have also warned that flight can be consistent with fear, panic, confusion, or other reasons that do not prove guilt. Mere presence at a scene plus flight does not automatically prove involvement in a crime.

May 22, 2026

A traffic stop gives police authority to investigate the reason for the stop. It does not automatically give them permission to search the entire vehicle for drugs. To search a car, police generally need some legal basis. That may include consent, probable cause, a search warrant, or another recognized exception to the warrant requirement. If police search a vehicle without proper legal justification, the defense may be able to file a motion to suppress the evidence. If that motion is successful, the drugs may be excluded from evidence — and the case may become much harder for the Commonwealth to prove.

May 16, 2026

The DL-26A breath testing warnings expressly state that the person has no right to speak with an attorney or anyone else before deciding whether to submit to the breath test. That does not mean you have no rights. You still have the right to challenge the DUI, challenge the stop, challenge the arrest, challenge the refusal, challenge the warnings, challenge PennDOT’s suspension, and challenge the reliability of the Commonwealth’s evidence. But the decision about whether to take the chemical test must be made when requested, after the officer gives the required warnings.

May 15, 2026

Pennsylvania courts have applied this framework in firearm cases, including vehicle cases. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained that the plain view exception allows police to seize objects viewed from a lawful vantage point where the incriminating nature of the object is immediately apparent and the officer has a lawful right of access to the object.

May 11, 2026

But a major legal issue developed over whether a prior ARD case could be used against someone later charged with another DUI. Act 58 of 2025 was Pennsylvania’s legislative response. The law created a new DUI offense for people who commit DUI within 10 years after completing ARD or a similar diversion program. It also made changes to DUI grading, ARD procedures, license consequences, and driving-under-suspension penalties.