PA: Shining flashlight into hole in a shoebox was a search; there was a REP in the closed box

An officer responded to an overdose call to back up EMS. While in defendant’s house, he shined his flashlight through a manufacturer’s hole in a shoebox to look inside. This was an unreasonable search because defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the shoebox. Commonwealth v. Herlth, 2026 PA Super 114, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 284 (June 5, 2026) with a dissent:

Based on Appellant’s right to be secure in his residence, Payton, Jardines, and the protection provided to him as an owner of the closed shoebox, T.L.O., Perel, Appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the shoebox found in his residence. The Commonwealth contends that Appellant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy because he placed the closed shoebox in the middle of his living room, where guests were most likely to see it, instead of his bedroom. Commonwealth’s Brief at 13, 15, 65. The plain language of the Fourth Amendment, however, guarantees an individual’s right to be secure in his “house”. This right extends to his entire house, not merely his bedroom, Payton, Jardines, and to the curtilage of the house as well. Commonwealth v. Bowmaster, 101 A.3d 789, 792 (Pa. Super. 2014). The fact that Appellant placed the closed container in his living room does not mean that he exposed its contents to the public.

The Commonwealth also argues that the one-inch manufacturer’s hole “render[ed] the shoebox, even when the lid [was] shut, more analogous to an open or clear container than a closed container,” Commonwealth’s Brief at 8, making its contents visible to any “casual observer” and leaving Appellant without any reasonable expectation of privacy. Id. at 12, 16 (citing Commonwealth v. Heidelberg, 267 A.3d 492, 504 (Pa. Super. 2021) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in clear plastic baggies left in plain view in automobile). We do not consider Trooper Adams’ inspection of the shoebox “casual observation.” The contents of the shoebox were not visible to the naked eye; Trooper Adams had to use a flashlight to peer inside the shoebox and discern its contents. The fact that the lid was closed indicates that Appellant intended to “conceal its contents from plain view.” T.L.O., Perel, supra. We therefore conclude that Appellant in fact possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in the shoebox whose contents were not open or visible to any “casual observer”.