Court rules for defendants on crime lab reports

Associated Press via Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court says criminal defendants have a constitutional right to cross-examine the forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports on illegal drugs and other evidence used at trial.

The court on Thursday ruled 5-4 for a defendant who was convicted of cocaine trafficking, partly because of crime lab analysis.

Luis Melendez-Diaz challenged lab analysis that confirmed cocaine was in plastic bags found in the car he was riding in. Rather than accept the report, Melendez-Diaz said he should be allowed to question the lab analyst about testing methods, how the evidence was preserved and other issues.

Massachusetts courts rejected his arguments.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the high court, said Melendez-Diaz has a constitutional right to confront the lab analyst.

Flight Upon Seeing Police Does Not Give Officers Probable Cause To Stop, Let Alone Arrest Individuals

 Officers from a Borough in Northeastern PA have asked us to help them determine if they can pursue and stop individuals who run away from a street corner upon seeing their police car enter the area.

 The officers report that they have not observed the individuals who flee upon seeing the police car engaging in criminal activity and that their department has not received any reports or tips from the public that the individuals have engaged in criminal acts. In addition the area of the street corner is not known for drug activity.

 We have found several PA cases pertaining to this issue.

 As is always the case, the key issue is Probable Cause (PC). You will recall from your academy training that probable cause has been defined by our courts as a requisite element of a valid arrest, consisting of the existence of facts and circumstances within one’s knowledge and of which one has reasonably trustworthy information, sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that a crime has been committed (See 267 U.S. 132).  PC can be established in many ways. It may be established on the basis of the cumulative knowledge of the investigating officers (See 380 U.S. 102); However, PC cannot be based on facts which are completely innocent in themselves (See 393 U.S. 410); Furthermore, the fact that the suspect(s) have been previously involved in similar crimes, if any have in fact been committed, is not of important value (See 393 U.S. 410); PC must be based on particular facts and not mere conclusions (See 378 U.S. 108).

 With that being said we will now delve into the cases we have discovered pertaining to the issue of Flight as an element of Probable Cause.

 * Commonwealth v. Biagini, 540 Pa. 22, 655 A. 2d 492 (1995) & In Interest of Barry W., 423 Pa. Super. 549, 621 A. 2d 669 (1993): The mere fact that a person quickens his pace upon being observed by police officers and starts to run when a police officer begins to chase him does not give rise to a reasonable belief that criminal activity is afoot, and is therefore insufficient to justify even a Terry Stop (See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, (1968), absent some other factor which would give rise to criminal conduct. Thus, the court held that an anonymous tip that a male was selling drugs at a certain location, coupled with the flight of the male upon the approach of the police, without more, did not give rise to probable cause to arrest nor reasonable suspicion to stop and detain the male. The court stated: “We are unwilling, as a matter of law, to hold that an anonymous tip bearing no indication of reliability, and containing no predictions of future behavior, and unsupported by any corroborative observations by an officer, when coupled with flight, justifies a forcible Terry stop.” (See 621 A. 2d at 678).

 * Commonwealth v. Chase, 394 Pa. Super. 168, 575 A. 2d 574 (1990):  “although flight, in & of itself, does not supply probable cause to arrest, flight in combination with other factors may reasonably indicate that an individual has committed a criminal offense”.

 * In Interest of D.W., 427 Pa. Super. 629, 629 A. 2d 1387 (1993):police observation of a suspicious exchange of cash for a small packet at 2:40 a.m. in a high-crime area, coupled with an anonymous tip of drug dealing and the flight of the suspect’s companions, supported a finding of probable cause to arrest.

 * Commonwealth v. Woodson, 342 Pa. Super. 392, 493 A. 2d 78 (1985): Finding probable cause for arrest of suspect matching description of “young black man wearing a beige sweater or shirt” who evaded police and offered unsubstantiated explanation for his presence near the crime scene.

 * Commonwealth v. Phillips, 338 Pa. Super. 274, 487 A. 2d  962 (1985): Flight of companions on approach of suspect by officer supported a finding of probable cause to arrest.

 * Commonwealth v. Williams, 317 Pa. Super. 456, 464 A. 2d 411 (1983): Finding probable cause for arrest of suspect matching description of “black man with a mustache” seen near time and place of crime, who repeatedly fled upon seeing  police.

 We believe that our fellow officers in the Northeastern PA Borough should not attempt to “pursue & stop” the individuals that flee from the street corner upon seeing their police car enter the area without having some articulable reason to believe that the fleeing individuals are involved in criminal activity at the time they flee upon seeing the police car or that the fleeing individuals match the description of individuals that have been involved in criminal activity.

 However, we also believe that our fellow officers should actively observe the fleeing individuals by following after them to learn the location to which they are fleeing and to simply perform intelligence gathering as there is nothing in our laws to prevent officers from simply patrolling their jurisdictions on foot, observing activities of citizens, and making notes on their observations.

Pennsylvania Constables Have Significant Arrest Authority

 This article delves into the authority of Pennsylvania Constables to affect warrantless arrests for crimes committed in their presence. In future articles we will explore the Constables activities in the areas of Process service, Court Security, Training, Vehicle Code Enforcement, and the display of emergency lighting on Constables vehicles as well as other topics.

Contrary to the beliefs of most citizens, law enforcement officers, and even many Constables themselves, Pennsylvania Constables have full authority to make warrantless arrests for crimes in the Commonwealth.

 I stress “warrantless arrests” due to the common belief that the only function of Constables, due mostly to ignorance of the laws and court decisions pertaining to Constables, is serving arrest warrants and other documents issued by the courts.

 Most often this belief is expressed by, how should I say, the miscreants of our society? Well, however you say it, the bad guys. Usually they express this belief when they are out & about engaging in their less than honorable pursuits and observe someone in a uniform with a badge. The miscreants will stop what they are doing and look closely at the uniform in an effort to determine if the officer may be able to arrest them. Almost without fail when they determine the officer is a Constable, they say to each other “It’s just a Constable” and they go back to their misdeeds without concern.

 This perception of Constables must be corrected as sooner or later a Constable who is on his game is going come across a bad guy who honestly believes a Constable cannot arrest him without a warrant and will resist the Constable when told he is under arrest creating a very dangerous situation for the Constable & the suspect.

 In addition, Constables can be a very positive factor in law enforcement’s ever increasingly difficult job of getting the bad guys off the street; if they know and understand the authority they can exercise.

  The PA Supreme Court has noted in the case of In Re Act 147 of 1990, 528 PA 460,463 (1991) “Constables are Peace Officers charged with the conservation of the peace, and whose job it is to arrest those who have violated it; It is the Constables job to enforce the law and carry it out, just as the same is the job of District Attorneys, Sheriffs, and the police generally”.

 The arrest authority of PA Constables is defined generally in PA law in Title 13 of  the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Annotated, commonly referred to as Purdon’s Statutes (P.S.), 45 et seq. which states: “Constables of the Commonwealth, in addition to the powers already conferred upon them, shall and may, without warrant and upon view, arrest and commit for hearing any and all persons guilty of  a breach of the peace, vagrancy, riotous and disorderly conduct or drunkenness,or who may be engaged in the commission of an unlawful act tending to imperil the personal security or endanger the property of the citizens, or violating municipal ordinances, for the violation of which a fine or penalty is imposed. Any person arrested with or without a warrant, shall be entitled to trial.”

   In The case of Commonwealth v. Frombach, 420 Pa Super. 498 (1992) the PA Superior Court determined that the PA Legislature by 13 P.S. 45 et seq. (above), “Conferred on Constables the power to without warrant and upon view, arrest and commit for hearing any and all persons guilty of a breach of the peace.

 A breach of the peace has been defined generally as any of “a great variety of conduct destroying or menacing public order and tranquility. It includes not only violent acts but acts and words likely to produce violence in others” (see 310 U.S. 296, 308) In its broadest sense the term refers to any criminal offense, or at least any indictable offense (see 207 U.S. 425). Breaches of the peace have been defined by state courts as “disturbances of the public peace violative of order and decency or decorum (see 147 N.W. 2d 886,892). And as “any violation of any law enacted to preserve peace and good order” and “signifies disorderly, dangerous conduct disruptive of public peace (see 261 A. 2d 731, 739).

 In the case of Commonwealth v. Taylor, 450 Pa. Super. 583, 677 A. 2d 846 (1996)the Superior Court, citing the Constables authority to affect warrantless arrests for breaches of the peace, determined that Constables have the authority make arrests for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. (see also Commonwealth v. Corley, 507 Pa. 540,491 A.2d 829 (1985)) where the court held that a private citizen can affect an arrest when a felony has been committed and the citizen reasonably believes that the person he arrests has committed the felony.

  In further exploration of the authority of PA Constables it must be noted that in the case of Commonwealth v. McGavin, 305 Pa. Super. 528, 534, 451 A. 2d 773 (1982)the Superior Court held that the statute authorizing  Constables to make warrantless arrests, 13 P.S. 45 et seq. (above),requires that the offense for which the warrantless arrest is made be an offense that (1) is committed within view of the Constable, and (2) constitutes a breach of the peace (described above).

 In a real world scenario this seems to indicate that should a Constable observe 2 men fighting in the street, the Constable has authority to make arrests for disorderly conduct, etc., but should a Constable observe a man sitting on a sidewalk bleeding from his nose and upon investigation learns that the man was assaulted by an identified individual, the Constable should secure the scene & protect the victim from further harm and then would need to contact the law enforcement agency for the jurisdiction so that they could make the arrest on information received from the victim since the Constable did not witness the breach of the peace.

Also, in the bloody nosed victim example above, if the victim or a witness  were to point out the person(s) with whom the victim was fighting, it seems  the Constable would be authorized to detain,  not arrest, the individual(s) for investigative purposes. If the Constable decides to detain, not arrest, the accused individual(s), he would be justified in performing a pat down frisk of the individual(s) in an effort to be certain the individual(s) does  not possess dangerous weapons and he may even place the individual(s) in handcuffs while waiting for the arrival of the jurisdictions law enforcement agency (see Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89, 641 A. 2d 299 (1994); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968); Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S. Ct. 1657 (1996); United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S. Ct. 690 (1981).

 In short, based on the court’s language in the McGavin case above, it seems that a Constable has authority to make arrests for crimes in progress that he sees taking place.

 However, recall that in the Corley case the court held that “even a private citizen can effect an arrest when a felony has been committed and the citizen reasonably believes that the person he arrests has committed the felony”. Note that the court did not say that the citizen must actually observe the felony being committed. Rather, the court said the citizen can affect an arrest for a felony when the citizen reasonably believes that the person he arrests has committed the felony.

 In summation, Pennsylvania Constables are authorized to affect warrantless arrests for breaches of the peace committed in their presence and may detain for investigative purposes individuals they reasonably believe to be engaged in criminal activity.

 In addition, Constables, the same as private citizens, may affect an arrest for a felony if he reasonably believes that a felony has been committed and that the person he has arrested committed the felony.