Opinion ID: 1936908
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: illegal seizure by police

Text: Even if I could accept the majority's argument that police could enter the apartment, I would still find that the police in the case sub judice conducted an illegal seizure. The majority holds that the police can seize only such evidence as the fire marshall would have been justified in seizing. See Majority Op. at 210-212. Unlike the majority, I do not believe that a Montgomery County fire marshal is justified in seizing evidence in a home which is unrelated to the investigation of arson or any related crime in the absence of exigent circumstances. Thus, the police could not validly seize contraband under the guise of [standing] in the shoes of the fire marshall. Id. at 213. The question of which types of evidence a fire marshal is authorized to seize is primarily a matter of state law. The duties and responsibilities of a fire marshal are governed by the Counties Code. See Pa.Stat.Ann tit. 16, §§ 6101-6110 (Purdon 1956). Section 6104 of the Code states that a fire marshal shall attempt to save property from fire, pillage, theft, and destruction. Section 6105 grants fire marshals the power to arrest persons who have willfully set buildings on fire. Nothing in the Code indicates that fire marshals in Pennsylvania have general police powers and may seize evidence solely because it would be relevant to a prosecution for possession of controlled substances. Cf. Commonwealth v. Smith, 511 Pa. at 46, 511 A.2d at 801 ([F]iremen may seize any evidence which is in plain view of the cause and origin of the fire.  (emphasis added)). Instead of seizing contraband on his own, a fire marshal should ordinarily inform a policeman of the existence of the contraband. The policeman should then seize the contraband after securing a proper warrant. In reaching the opposite conclusion, the majority relies upon cases from other jurisdictions. In these cases, the powers of fire officials were governed by statutes which do not apply in this Commonwealth. In State v. Bell, supra , where an assistant fire marshal organized the seizure of marijuana plants, a Washington statute vested fire marshals with police powers to enforce the laws of the state. 108 Wash.2d at 203 n. 1, 737 P.2d at 260 n. 1 (Pearson, C.J., concurring) (citing RCW 48.48060(2)). Similarly, in United States v. Green, supra , an applicable Florida statute granted the state fire marshall the same authority to . . . make searches and seizures, as the sheriff or his deputies. . . . 474 F.2d at 1389 n. 2 (citing Fla.Stat.Ann. § 633.14). In United States v. Johnson, supra , an applicable section of a local code granted fire fighters all the powers conferred by statute and ordinance upon constables, sheriffs and state police of the State of Delaware. 524 F.Supp. at 205 n. 3 (citing Wilmington City Code 5-31). And in Steigler v. Anderson, supra , a case involving the seizure of evidence of arson, an applicable Delaware statute granted fire marshals the power to enforce all laws and ordinances of the State . . . having to do with . . . the suppression of arson. 496 F.2d at 796 n. 7 (citing Del.Code § 6607). I would conclude that in the absence of such statutory language, a fire marshal would not be authorized to seize evidence evidence under the circumstances present in this case. Momorella would have acted improperly if he had seized the contraband himself instead of contacting Officer McGowan. Furthermore, when the police seized the contraband, they exceeded the limits of Momorella's legitimate seizure power. The police seizure cannot be viewed as the functional equivalent of any seizure which the fire marshal could have carried out. I express no opinion as to whether a hypothetical confiscation of the drugs by the fire marshal would have been an unreasonable seizure within the meaning of the fourth amendment. Not every act by a government official which exceeds the scope of his authority rises to the level of a constitutional violation. See Commonwealth v. Mason, 507 Pa. 396, 405-07, 490 A.2d 421, 426 (1985). Yet, since Momorella was not authorized to seize the contraband, he could not have been justified in seizing the contraband even though he observed it in plain view. And since Momorella would have had no justification for making the seizure, the police cannot justify their own seizure based upon what Momorella might have done. Accordingly, the warrantless seizure of evidence in this case does not even fall within the new exception to the warrant requirement that the majority today recognizes. The evidence should be suppressed. I respectfully dissent.