PA: Search of unconscious accident victim’s purse for ID was valid

Defendant was found unconscious after an accident, and first responders searched her purse for identification and any medical alert information. Drugs were found. That search was valid, as was an inventory of her vehicle three days later. Case law from other states support the first search, even though the trial court didn’t rely on that. Commonwealth v. Gatlos, 2013 PA Super 252, 76 A.3d 44 (2013):

… Based upon the certified record, it is undisputed that: (1) Appellant was alone in her vehicle; (2) the crash rendered Appellant unresponsive; (3) Appellant needed immediate medical assistance; (4) there was no way for first responders to reliably identify Appellant without undertaking a vehicle search; (5) time was of the essence; (6) Appellant’s vehicle was inoperable; and (7) there was no way for officers to properly take custody of the vehicle, secure the scene, and remove wreckage without a vehicle search.

With regard to the two warrant exceptions set forth above, Pennsylvania law, as applied in Johnson and relied upon by the trial court, recognizes that exigent circumstances may provide an exception to the warrant requirement in what are essentially emergency situations created by those exigent circumstances. Johnson, however, did not involve a vehicle search. Our Supreme Court in Nance recognized that, in certain circumstances, an inventory search is necessary “to ascertain or identify the identity of a defendant,” but Nance did not delve into the circumstances within which that exception is applicable. Indeed, we are surprised to realize that, based upon our research, Pennsylvania precedent has not addressed the circumstances necessary to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle for the purpose of identifying an unresponsive crash victim. Other states, however, address this issue within the scope of what they title the “emergency aid doctrine.” We find their analysis of the emergency aid doctrine helpful and persuasive.