State liquor control and local and state police officers conducted a raid on a frat house, and they detained all underage persons without cause to believe that they were drinking. The detention was unconstitutional. Commonwealth v. Mistler, 590 Pa. 390, 912 A.2d 1265 (Pa. 2006):
Similarly, this Court has upheld such suspicionless searches and seizures in the following contexts: (1) vehicle checkpoints, see, e.g., Blouse, 611 A.2d at 1179 (holding that suspicionless vehicle stops at fixed checkpoints to detect and remove unlicensed drivers and dangerous automobiles from the road are constitutional); (2) weapons and drugs searches at public schools, see, e.g., In re F.B., 555 Pa. 661, 726 A.2d 361, 368 (Pa. 1999) (deeming constitutional suspicionless point-of-entry search for weapons at public school); Cass, 709 A.2d at 365 (finding that suspicionless canine-sniff drug search of student lockers at public school does not violate Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution); but see Theodore v. Del. Valley Sch. Dist., 575 Pa. 321, 836 A.2d 76, 91 (Pa. 2003) (invalidating, under the state Constitution, the random drug testing of extracurricular participants and student drivers, where the record contained no evidence that a drug problem existed at the school or that the targeted group was particularly prone to drug use).
Having identified the framework necessary for our analysis, we now turn to a consideration of whether the search at issue satisfies its requirements. The Commonwealth argues that, upon balancing these three factors, it is clear that such a general search is legal and that suppression should be denied. We disagree.
As to the first prong, the interference with individual liberty was significant. Students who paid to attend the party entered the fraternity house with the reasonable expectation that they would be able to leave at will. Nevertheless, that reasonable expectation was frustrated when the LCE officers detained students under the age of twenty-one.
Next, we must assess the degree to which the seizure advanced the public interest. Certainly, the public has an interest in deterring underage consumption of alcohol. This is evident by, inter alia, the Pennsylvania statute outlawing such behavior. 18 Pa.C.S § 6308. Yet we see no evidence, and the Commonwealth has presented none, that the methods employed in this case are more effective in reducing underage drinking than a myriad of other available options.
Finally, we must address the gravity of the public concern served by the seizure. The United States Supreme Court has held that it would not deem the “general interest in crime control” as a justifiable reason for a regime of suspicionless stops; it has not condoned suspicionless searches where the program is aimed at uncovering evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. City of Indianapolis, 531 U.S. at 42. In the instant case, we can identify no factor that elevates the level of public concern regarding underage drinking beyond that of “a general interest in crime control.” The Commonwealth, in its efforts to justify the seizure, presents no evidence that prosecution of underage drinkers qualifies as one of the few areas of criminal wrongdoing for which a regime of suspicionless stops should be deemed constitutional.
. . .
Given the absence of such a paramount public interest in the instant case, we believe that the suspicionless stop sub judice violated both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The conduct of the LCE officers and the WCP does not comport with constitutional requirements as it failed to address an area of paramount importance. Rather, the actions of the officers were geared toward general crime control and the discovery of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, which the United States Supreme Court has deemed insufficient to justify a suspicionless stop. City of Indianapolis, 531 U.S. at 42. Such acts, absent a cause of heightened importance to the citizenry of the Commonwealth, cannot support a suspicionless detention.
The officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant for a fictitious license plate, but, as he walked up to the car, he realized that he misread the license plate, and it was not fictitious. The defendant should have been free to leave at that point. State v. Cromes, 2006 Ohio 6924, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 6846 (3d Dist. December 28, 2006).
Comparing defendant’s DNA to the CODIS database is not an unreasonable search and seizure. State v. Cannon, 2006 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 994 (December 27, 2006).*
In a March 31 post appears this:
In an unpublished opinion, the Houston TX Court of Appeals held that defendant’s girlfriend had apparent authority to consent to the search of a nonpassword protected computer that both of them used, even though the computer belonged to the defendant. Hebert v. State, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 2539 (Houston (14th Dist.) March 30, 2006).
The opinion was substituted and published with the same result at Hebert v. State, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 11070 (Tex. App. — Houston (14th Dist.) December 28, 2006):
Appellant’s brief concedes that Fridell had authority to consent to a search of the trailer’s common areas, and challenges only her authority regarding the non-common areas, such as appellant’s office and computer. However, appellant’s brief cites no cases to support a contention that separate and/or greater authority would be required for non-common areas, either generally or under circumstances similar to those in this case. In addition, appellant’s issue does not challenge the evidence supporting the trial court’s statements but only its legal conclusion that those facts amount to actual (or apparent) authority in that: (1) there is no evidence that Friddell was a party to the rental or ownership of the trailer; (2) Friddell testified that appellant used the third bedroom as his office and the computer there belonged to him; (3) appellant had the right to exclude Friddell from entering his office or using his computer there; (4) there is no evidence that appellant gave Friddell express or implied consent to enter his office or use his computer; and (5) Friddell testified that she had never used the computer without appellant being present. However, appellant cites no cases reaching a contrary conclusion on the issue of actual authority on facts resembling those relied upon by the trial court, nor does he cite any cases concluding that actual authority was lacking due to factors similar to those he relies upon to preclude a finding of actual authority.
Because: (1) the supported-by-the-record facts recited by the trial court show that Friddell had “joint access or control for most purposes” to the trailer premises; and (3) the factors relied upon by appellant show, at most, a lack of equal, but not joint, access or control over the office or computer, we conclude that appellant’s issue fails to demonstrate that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Therefore, appellant’s issue is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
