PA: Unreasonable stop voids subsequent search even for a passenger otherwise without standing

The initial illegality of an unreasonable stop taints the following search whether the defendant has standing in the car or not. Commonwealth v. Shabezz, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 1691 (July 19, 2017):

On June 1, 2013, Saleem Shabezz was a passenger in a vehicle that was seized unconstitutionally by police officers. Following the stop, the officers searched the vehicle, finding drugs and weapons in various locations and compartments, as well as on Shabezz’ person. The question that we confront today is whether an illegal seizure entitles a passenger to suppression only if he can establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the areas of the car where the evidence was found, or whether that evidence instead is barred outright as fruit of the poisonous tree. We hold that the contested evidence, tainted by the initial illegality, must be suppressed, even absent a demonstrable expectation of privacy in the locations where the evidence was found. Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s order, and we remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

This entry was posted in Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.