Opinion ID: 1927376
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: donald carlton

Text: Donald Carlton complains that the police violated his constitutional rights when they entered 3229 Fontain Street without announcing that their purpose was to execute a search warrant. He was arrested on the street near the house and was not inside the house when police entered. In Pennsylvania, defendants charged with possessory offenses have automatic standing to litigate a suppression motion. Commonwealth v. Sell, 504 Pa. 46, 470 A.2d 457 (1983). In Commonwealth v. Gordon, 546 Pa. 65, 683 A.2d 253 (1996) and Commonwealth v. Peterson, 535 Pa. 492, 636 A.2d 615 (1993) police conducted warrantless entries into abandoned buildings which were occupied by the defendants, where they seized contraband. We held that although defendants charged with possessory offenses have standing to file a motion to suppress the materials seized by police, they must, as part of their case for suppression, meet the threshold requirement of demonstration of a privacy interest which was actual, societally sanctioned as reasonable, and justifiable in the place invaded. . . . Peterson, 535 Pa. at 497, 636 A.2d at 617. In Gordon we explained that in order to establish a legally cognizable expectation of privacy, a defendant must establish either a possessory interest, a legitimate presence or a characteristic of ownership . . . from which society could recognize an expectation of privacy. Gordon, 546 Pa. at 73, 683 A.2d at 257. In short, in order for a defendant accused of a possessory crime to prevail in a challenge to the search and seizure which provided the evidence used against him, he must, as a threshold matter, establish that he has a legally cognizable expectation of privacy in the premises which were searched. Donald Carlton, therefore, must establish that he had an expectation of privacy in the premises entered by police. The trial court stated: Identification showing that the defendants used 3229 Fontain Street as their address was found in the house. Slip Op. at 11. This statement, which is tantamount to a finding of fact, establishes that Donald Carlton had the requisite privacy interest in the premises. [3] Having established that, he may challenge the propriety of the search and seizure.