{"id":800,"date":"2007-09-17T20:00:20","date_gmt":"2007-02-22T08:21:09","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-02-22T08:21:09","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=800","title":{"rendered":"PA explains conflict of laws in criminal law"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court takes the time to explain application of conflict of laws in criminal cases, but it ultimately determines that the outcome was the same no matter which law applied. The defendant here was being questioned at work, but he was not in custody, and he broke down and admitted his role in a murder. Commonwealth v. Eichinger<\/a>, 915
\nA.2d 1122 (2007):<\/p>\n

It is a basic principle of conflict of laws cases involving criminal matters that the “question of jurisdiction and that of governing substantive law always receives the same answer. The governing law is always the law of the forum state, if the forum court has jurisdiction.” Commonwealth v. Ohle<\/em>, 503 Pa. 566, 470 A.2d 61, 67-67 (Pa. 1983) (citing Leflar, Conflicts of Laws: Choice of Law in Criminal Cases<\/em>, 25 Case Western Res. L.Rev. 44, 47 (1974)). Jurisdiction relates to a court’s power to hear and decide a case. Ohle<\/em>, 470 A.2d at 67. This concept has its roots in territorial principles and the idea of sovereignty. Leflar, supra,<\/em> at 45. Although these conflict of laws concepts have evolved, the traditional theory would argue that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is an independent sovereign over persons within its territory and can brook no control of its citizens by a foreign sovereign, nor allow what occurs in its territorial boundaries to be punished by another. Id.<\/em> (citing Levitt, Jurisdiction over Crimes-II,<\/em> 16 J.Crim. L. & Criminology 495, 509-10 (1925). Pennsylvania has codified its jurisdiction over the matter under 18 Pa.C.S. \u00a7 102(a)(1) which provides for a conviction “under the laws of this Commonwealth” when “the conduct which is an element of the offense … occurs within this Commonwealth.” It is not in dispute that the substantive crime of murder occurred in Pennsylvania. As a result, Pennsylvania has jurisdiction and may apply its law.<\/p>\n

Our inquiry could end there. However, although it is not mandated, where more than one state has a substantial connection with the activity in question, the forum state may analyze the interests of all states involved and choose which state’s law to apply. Ohle,<\/em> 470 A.2d at 68. In Pennsylvania, we do not apply our law just because we have jurisdiction. Rather, we have adopted a flexible choice of law rule which weighs the interests our sister-states may have in the transaction. See Griffith v. United Air Lines,<\/em> 416 Pa. 1, 203 A.2d 796, 805 (Pa. 1964). This concept was formally adopted for criminal cases in Commonwealth v. Sanchez,<\/em> 552 Pa. 570, 716 A.2d 1221, 1224 (Pa. 1998).<\/p>\n

To start this analysis, we first note that procedural rules and substantive law require separate considerations. It is a fundamental principle of conflicts of laws that a court will use the procedural rules of its own state. “That is true in both civil and criminal cases, but especially in criminal cases as a sort of corollary to the local nature of substantive criminal law. Procedures in criminal cases are always those of the forum.” Leflar, American Conflicts Law, Fourth Edition, \u00a7 116 (1977). Procedural rules are “that which prescribe the methods of enforcing rights.” Commonwealth v. Sanchez,<\/em> 716 A.2d at 1224. On the other hand, substantive law “gives or defines the right.” Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

In Commonwealth v. Sanchez,<\/em> we held that an issue of search and seizure is substantive as it involves a strict question of constitutional law which concerns the fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Id.<\/em> Eichinger raises a constitutional question under the Fifth Amendment, which implicates his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, therefore, the issue must be addressed under the principles of conflict between substantive laws.<\/p>\n

As noted before, our choice of law rule when there is a conflict between the substantive criminal laws of this Commonwealth and those of a sister-state, requires that we analyze the policies and interests underlying the rule of each state so that the policy of the jurisdiction most immediately concerned will be applied. Commonwealth v. Sanchez,<\/em> 552 Pa. 570, 716 A.2d 1221, 1223-24 (Pa. 1998). But it remains implicit in this analysis that there be a conflict between the substantive law of New Jersey and the law of Pennsylvania.<\/p>\n

In fact, no conflict exists. Both the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Courts must effectuate the guarantee provided in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution that, as a general rule, the prosecution may not use statements, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, stemming from a custodial interrogation of a defendant unless it demonstrates that he was apprised of his right against self-incrimination and his right to counsel. Miranda,<\/em> 384 U.S. at 444. A suspect in is custody when he is deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Id.<\/em> at 445.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Officer receiving a BOLO on a car had reasonable suspicion based on knowledge of the other officers who put the BOLO. United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95359 (D. N.M. December 11, 2006).*<\/p>\n

Probationer was required to submit to polygraphs as a part of probation, and, during his pretest interview, he admitted having a gun. He was not in custody for Miranda<\/em> purposes even though he was required to appear. State v. Levens, 214 Ariz. 339, 498 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 8, 152 P.3d 1222 (2007).<\/p>\n

Defendant was stopped for having a taillight out, and his license came back as “for business purposes only,” but it seemed that he was not driving for business purposes. The officer asked if he had anything on him, and defendant admitted having “pills.” His admission was voluntary and justified looking for them. State v. Olave, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2389 (Fla. App. 2d Dist. February 21, 2007).*<\/p>\n

Officer had reasonable suspicion for a stop based on the description of a wanted person for a robbery posing as Brinks guards. When defendant was seen, his clothing matched the description except for the shirt, and he had a plastic bag in his pocket, useful [supposedly] for carrying the proceeds of a theft. The search of the vehicle was valid. State v. Grant, 2007 Ohio 680, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 620 (9th Dist. February 20, 2007).*<\/p>\n

Officer had reasonable suspicion of DUI when he got defendant out of the vehicle and smelled of burnt marijuana. State v. Cook, 2007 Ohio 707, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 635 (5th Dist. February 12, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-800","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/800","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=800"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/800\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=800"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=800"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=800"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}