Court Opinion

ID: 9698476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:51:41.306063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:41.263101
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge:
Where a fire marshall, while seeking to determine the extent of smoke damage caused by a recently extinguished fire, observes in plain view that which he believes to be drugs and drug paraphernalia and thereafter summons a police officer, may the police officer seize the evidence without first obtaining a search warrant? The trial court held that a search warrant was required and suppressed the evidence which had been observed by the fire marshall and seized by the police officer: The trial court also suppressed additional evidence which had been found and seized in a *199later consensual search, holding that the consent given by the resident of the apartment where the fire had occurred was tainted by the illegality of the original search. The Commonwealth has appealed from the trial court’s suppression order.1 We reverse.
Edward M. Momorella, the assistant fire marshall of Upper Moreland, responded to a fire call at premises 2009B Jason Drive, Huntingdon Valley, in Montgomery County. He arrived after the fire had been extinguished by firemen. He determined that the fire had originated accidentally in a plastic covered chair, which had been removed from the apartment complex and was smoldering on the lawn. Momorella then entered the apartment to observe where the chair had been situated. He confirmed that the chair had been the source of the fire and examined the interior of the apartment to determine the extent of the damage which had been caused by fire and smoke. He observed that the apartment was ventilating, with windows open, and that only a small amount of soot was on the apartment walls. Upon examining two bedrooms for possible smoke damage, Momorella observed a marble slab, a scale, a plastic bag containing a white, powdery residue, and a bag containing green matter. Upon emerging from the apartment, he told Officer McGowen of the Upper Moreland Police Department, who was outside the apartment, about that which he had observed in the bedroom and said that he would like McGowen to see it. Thereafter, McGowen entered the apartment bedroom, where he observed a bag of marijuana, a triple beam scale, a razor, a mirror and plastic bags. The discovery was reported to Sgt. Levy, who was at the station, and he was summoned to the scene of the fire. Shortly thereafter, the defendant, William C. Person, and his girlfriend returned from a shopping trip and identified themselves as the occupants of the apartment. They were *200confronted by Sgt. Levy, who told them of the observations made by McGowen and Momorella, said that they wanted to search the apartment further, and that if the occupants didn’t consent, a search warrant would be obtained. Person consented to a further search. He also showed police where additional drugs were stored. As a result, police seized from a dresser drawer methamphetamine, marijuana, pills, and drug paraphernalia. Person and his girlfriend were placed under arrest.2
In reviewing an appeal taken by the Commonwealth from an order suppressing evidence,
we must consider only the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses and so much of the Commonwealth evidence that, read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted. See Commonwealth v. Hamlin, 503 Pa. 210, 469 A.2d 137 (1983). Furthermore, our scope of appellate review is limited primarily to questions of law. See Commonwealth v. White, 358 Pa.Super. 120, 516 A.2d 1211 (1986). We are bound by the suppression court’s findings of fact if those findings are supported by the record. Id. Factual findings wholly lacking in evidence, however, may be rejected. Id.
Commonwealth v. Stine, 372 Pa.Super. 312, 314, 539 A.2d 454, 455 (1988). See also: Commonwealth v. James, 506 Pa. 526, 532-533, 486 A.2d 376, 379 (1985); Commonwealth v. Hamlin, 503 Pa. 210, 215-216, 469 A.2d 137, 139 (1983).
The United States Supreme Court has twice, within the context of prosecutions for arson, considered the authority of fire department officials to conduct warrantless investigations at the scene of a fire. In Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978), the Court said:
A burning building clearly presents an exigency of sufficient proportions to render a warrantless entry “reasonable.” Indeed, it would defy reason to suppose that firemen must secure a warrant or consent before enter*201ing a burning structure to put out the blaze. And once in a building for this purpose, firefighters may seize evidence of arson that is in plain view. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465-466, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2037-2038, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 [1971].
Fire officials are charged not only with extinguishing fires, but with finding their causes. Prompt determination of the fire’s origin may be necessary to prevent its recurrence, as through the detection of continuing dangers such as faulty wiring or a defective furnace. Immediate investigation may also be necessary to preserve evidence from intentional or accidental destruction. And, of course, the sooner the officials complete their duties, the less will be their subsequent interference with the privacy and the recovery efforts of the victims. For these reasons, officials need no warrant to remain in a building for a reasonable time to investigate the cause of a blaze after it has been extinguished. And if the warrantless entry to put out the fire and determine its cause is constitutional, the warrantless seizure of evidence while inspecting the premises for these purposes also is constitutional.
Id. at 509-510, 98 S.Ct. at 1950, 56 L.Ed.2d at 498-499 (footnote omitted). Six years later, in Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287, 104 S.Ct. 641, 78 L.Ed.2d 477 (1984), the Supreme Court limited its holding in Tyler as follows:
Where, however, reasonable expectations of privacy remain in the fire-damaged property, additional investigations begun after the fire has been extinguished and fire and police officials have left the scene, generally must be made pursuant to a warrant or the identification of some new exigency.
The aftermath of a fire often presents exigencies that will not tolerate the delay necessary to obtain a warrant or to secure the owner’s consent to inspect fire-damaged premises. Because determining the cause and origin of a *202fire serves a compelling public interest, the warrant requirement does not apply in such cases.
The object of the search is important even if exigent circumstances exist. Circumstances that justify a warrantless search for the cause of a fire may not justify a search to gather evidence of criminal activity once that cause has been determined. If, for example, the administrative search is justified by the immediate need to ensure against rekindling, the scope of the search may be no broader than reasonably necessary to achieve its end. A search to gather evidence of criminal activity not in plain view must be made pursuant to a criminal warrant upon a traditional showing of probable cause.
Id. at 293-295, 104 S.Ct. at 647, 78 L.Ed.2d at 484-485 (1984) (footnotes omitted).
In Commonwealth v. Smith, 511 Pa. 36, 511 A.2d 796 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1006, 107 S.Ct. 643, 93 L.Ed.2d 700 (1986), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, also in the context of an arson prosecution, was called upon to interpret the Tyler and Clifford decisions. In doing so, the Court said:
Reading Tyler and Clifford together, certain principles regarding the Fourth Amendment and investigations of the causes and origins of fire are clear. Firemen have the right to enter a private residence without a warrant without violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, if done so for the purpose of extinguishing a fire. While performing the task, firemen may seize any evidence, which is in plain view, of the cause and origin of the fire. In fighting the fire, fire officials are also immediately charged with determining the cause and origin of the fire. The purposes of the investigation into the cause and origin of the fire may properly include prevention of the rekindling of the fire, and prevention of the destruction of evidence, either accidentally or intentionally. When the search is conduct*203ed for one of these purposes, no search warrant is necessary, even if consent has not been granted, but only if the search is a continuation of an initial entry. If the nonconsenting, warrantless entry is begun, but must be terminated due to the condition of the building, then that search may be continued at the first instance reentry is possible. Finally, if it is clearly shown that the search is not for the purpose of determining the cause and origin of the fire, but rather to obtain evidence of criminal activity, then such search must either be with consent or with a valid search warrant.
Commonwealth v. Smith, supra, 511 Pa. at 45-46, 511 A.2d at 800-801.
In the instant case, the purpose of the assistant fire marshall’s search was not to uncover evidence of criminal activity but to determine the cause of the fire and to determine the extent of the damage which had been caused by the fire. In carrying out his examination, the fire marshall determined that the source of the fire, indeed, had been the chair which had been removed from the living room. He then proceeded to check the bedrooms for smoke damage. It was during the check of the second bedroom that the drugs and paraphernalia were observed in plain view. The suppression court, relying on Commonwealth v. Smith, supra, concluded that “in Pennsylvania a fire mar-shall is allowed to seize evidence of arson while investigating the cause or origin of the fire and may supply information to police regarding ‘plain view’ evidence of [other] criminal activity.” The court determined, however, that “at present, there is no authority in Pennsylvania to allow a fire marshall to seize evidence [of] non-arson related criminal activity.” Thus, in suppressing the evidence, even though it had been observed in plain view, the suppression court reasoned as follows:
Because in the instant case the exigency had been removed and the source and origin of the fire had been determined and removed, a warrant to search the apartment was necessary even though a fire marshall’s admin*204istrative investigation of the extent of smoke damage from the fire had uncovered illegal contraband in “plain view.” The only value of the investigation of the fire for smoke damage was to provide material for a regular report and not to prove criminality. Coincidentally, the view provided sufficient information for an affidavit of probable cause to obtain a search warrant either for the police on information received or by an affidavit by the fire marshall on behalf of the police’s request for a search warrant.
Therefore, when the fire marshall was lawfully present on the premises for an administrative search and survey of the smoke damage, the non-arson source and sole object containing fire having been removed, the fire mar-shall should have reported to the police what he saw “in plain view” without allowing the police to search illegally and thereafter requiring the police to obtain a search warrant on information received from the marshall. This would have been sufficient probable, cause for an affidavit to obtain a search warrant. Once it was obtained, then a thorough search of the apartment both of “plain view” objects and those “not in plain view” was proper. The legitimacy of the search would be then unquestioned and consent would not have been an issue.
While the appellate courts in this Commonwealth have not determined whether a fireman can seize evidence of non-arson related crimes which he finds in plain view during the performance of legitimate firefighting duties, other courts which have considered this issue have refused to suppress evidence thus seized. See: United States v. Green, 474 F.2d 1385 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 829, 94 S.Ct. 55, 38 L.Ed.2d 63 (1973); United States v. Johnson, 524 F.Supp. 199 (D.Del.1981), rev’d on other grounds, 690 F.2d 60 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1214, 103 S.Ct. 1212, 75 L.Ed.2d 450 (1983); State v. Bell, 108 Wash.2d 193, 737 P.2d 254 (1987). See generally An-*205not., Admissibility, in Criminal Case, of Evidence Discovered by Warrantless Search in Connection with Fire Investigation — Post-Tyler Cases, 31 A.L.R.4th 194 (1984). But see: United States v. Hoffman, 607 F.2d 280 (9th Cir.1979). Cf. United States v. Parr, 716 F.2d 796 (11th Cir.1983) (search by firemen to protect valuables from looters in aftermath of a fire did not constitute a sufficient exigency to justify the warrantless seizure of evidence which was not in plain view).
In United States v. Johnson, supra, the United States District Court in Delaware refused to suppress drugs and paraphernalia, as well as various papers bearing the defendant’s name, which had been found by firefighters during the performance of their normal duties in the aftermath of a fire. In holding that the warrantless seizure of such evidence was proper, the court reasoned as follows:
A warrantless search is per se unreasonable under the fourth amendment. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). The government bears the burden of establishing that the challenged search fell within one of the carefully delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2031-32, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Katz v. United States, supra, 389 U.S. at 357, 88 S.Ct. at 514. Here the government contends that the exigency of the fire justified the warrantless search of the premises on December 26, 1979, and that evidence was then seized in plain view, in compliance with the fourth amendment.
A burning building presents an exigency of sufficient proportions to render a warrantless entry reasonable. Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 1949, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978); Steigler v. Anderson, 496 F.2d 793, 795 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1002, 95 S.Ct. 320, 42 L.Ed.2d 277 (1974); United States v. Green, 474 F.2d 1385, 1389 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 829, 94 S.Ct. 55, 38 L.Ed.2d 63 (1973). In this case, no one disputes the fact that the firemen’s entry of the house *206was for the sole purpose of extinguishing the fire in the second floor bedroom. They did not need a warrant for this entry, nor did they need a warrant to conduct the routine procedures of searching for and rescuing occupants, ventilating the building, searching for any additional fires, and securing the premises. Steigler v. Anderson, supra, at 795. In addition, Firefighter Wilson’s warrantless investigation of the cause of the fire was reasonable and justified by exigent circumstances. Id. at 797.
Once the firemen were legitimately on the premises carrying out their proper firefighting functions, any evidence they inadvertently saw in plain view could be seized without a warrant. See Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 1949, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). The firemen’s discovery of what appeared to be drugs and drug paraphernalia in the second floor rear bedroom clearly falls within this exception, because the incriminatory nature of the evidence was apparent and their discovery was inadvertent. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, at 466, 469-70, 91 S.Ct. at 2022, 2040. The seizure of various papers with Johnson’s name on them was reasonable under the same rationale.
Id. at 203-204.
It has been held also that after a fireman has lawfully observed evidence in plain view, he may summon a policeman to seize the evidence without first obtaining a warrant. See: United States v. Green, supra. See also: Steigler v. Anderson, 496 F.2d 793 (3d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1002, 95 S.Ct. 320, 42 L.Ed.2d 277 (1974); United States v. Johnson, supra; State v. Bell, supra. Contra: United States v. Hoffman, supra. In United States v. Green, supra, a deputy state fire marshall for the City of Jacksonville, Florida, had found plates used for the counterfeiting of currency while he was investigating the cause of a fire. After making this discovery, the deputy fire marshall sum*207moned a Secret Service agent to confirm that the plates were, in fact, used for counterfeiting and to take custody of them. In upholding the warrantless entry and the seizure of the plates by the Secret Service agent, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reasoned:
The purpose of a search warrant is to ensure judicial authorization, in advance, of intrusions into constitutionally protected privacy. Where a lawful intrusion has already occurred and a seizure by a State officer has validly taken place as a result of that intrusion, the invasion of privacy is not increased by an additional officer, albeit a federal officer, who is expert in identifying the type of contraband discovered, to enter the premises to confirm the belief of the State officer and to take custody of the evidence. Once the privacy of a dwelling has been lawfully invaded, to require a second officer from another law enforcement agency arriving on the scene of a valid seizure to secure a warrant before he enters the premises to confirm that the seized evidence is contraband and to take custody of it is just as senseless as requiring an officer to interrupt a lawful search to stop and procure a warrant for evidence he has already inadvertently found and seized. Terry v. Ohio, 1968, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889; Harris v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed. 1067. The apparent conflict between the Constitution and common sense which the plain view doctrine has reconciled is the same misconception which we here seek to dispel. See Mapp v. Ohio, 1961, 367 U.S. 643, 647, 81 S.Ct. 1684 [1687], 6 L.Ed.2d 1081.
United States v. Green, supra at 1390.
The Supreme Court of Washington, in State v. Bell, supra, considered a case which the suppression court conceded “factually is closest to the instant case.” In Bell, firefighters had been summoned to the scene of a fire and had removed from a house a woodstove which appeared to be the cause of the fire. Thereafter, the firefighters checked the attic, which was located directly above where *208the woodstove had been, to make certain that there were no smoldering embers. In checking the attic, the firefighters determined that the area above the woodstove was no longer burning but that it had been charred. They then observed, in plain view, what they believed to be marijuana plants. The firefighters summoned an assistant fire mar-shall to the scene, who then contacted a deputy prosecutor and was advised to confiscate the plants. A deputy sheriff was summoned to assist; and, thereafter, sheriffs officers and firemen removed the plants from the house. The defendant moved for the suppression of the plants which had been removed, arguing that a warrant had been necessary because exigent circumstances had not been present, i.e., the fire had already been extinguished. He also argued that the sheriffs officers needed a warrant to enter the house to assist in the seizure. In upholding the warrantless search and seizure, the Supreme Court of Washington reasoned as follows:
Fire fighters, like policemen, are subject to the Fourth Amendment. Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 504, 508, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 1949, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978). Therefore, fire fighters’ warrantless seizures of property found at the scene of a fire are per se unreasonable unless the State can show that they fall within one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. See Tyler, at 508-09, 98 S.Ct. at 1949.
The fire fighters’ role in this case is justified by the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement. A “plain view” seizure is valid if the following requirements are met: “(1) a prior justification for intrusion; (2) inadvertent discovery of incriminating evidence; and (3) immediate knowledge by the officer that he had evidence before him.” [State v.] Myrick, 102 Wash.2d [506] at 514, 688 P.2d 151 [1984] (quoting [State v.] Chrisman, 100 Wash.2d [814] at 819, 676 P.2d 419 [1984]). We now turn to analysis of those elements.
There was a prior justification for the fire fighters’ original intrusion into the attic. “A burning building of course creates an exigency that justifies a warrantless *209entry by fire officials to fight the blaze.” Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287, 293, 104 S.Ct. 641, 646, 78 L.Ed.2d 477 (1984). Moreover, exigent circumstances continue beyond the time when the fire has been extinguished. Tyler, 436 U.S. at 510, 98 S.Ct. at 1950. Fire fighters need no warrant to remain in the building a reasonable time to make sure that the fire does not rekindle, to search for additional fires, and to ventilate the building. Clifford, 464 U.S. at 293 n. 4, 104 S.Ct. 647, n. 4; Steigler v. Anderson, 496 F.2d 793, 795-96 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1002, 95 S.Ct. 320, 42 L.Ed.2d 277 (1974); State v. Olsen, 282 N.W.2d 528, 531 (Minn.1979). Bell’s attorney even concedes that the fire fighters “were permitted to be where they were when they found the plants.” Thus, exigent circumstances justify the fire fighters’ presence not only in Bell’s residence but also in his attic.
The discovery was also inadvertent. The fire fighters had the duty to ensure the fire was fully extinguished and would not rekindle. The fire fighters had to check the attic’s condition because the wall beneath it had been burned up to the ceiling. The duty to investigate became even more compelling when they saw the extent of the smoke in the attic. The fire fighters had not exceeded the scope of these duties when they happened upon the marijuana-growing operation.
Finally, the fire fighters were immediately aware that they had evidence before them. The purpose of this immediate knowledge requirement is so that “the ‘plain view’ doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). The fire fighters did not engage in this type of extended search. All that is required to satisfy the “immediate knowledge” element is a reasonable belief that evidence is present. State v. Lair, 95 Wash.2d 706, 716-17, 630 P.2d 427 (1981); State v. Claflin, 38 Wash.App. 847, 853, 690 P.2d 1186 (1984), review denied, 103 Wash.2d 1014 (1985). One of the two fire *210fighters who first entered the attic testified that “I suspected that [the plants] were — chances are they were marijuana.” The assistant marshal testified that “[t]his appeared to be a marijuana-growing operation to me.” The third element is met in the present case.
Bell contends, however, that we should hold the present seizure unconstitutional because there was plenty of time to obtain a search warrant after the operation was discovered. Bell argues that warrantless seizures should be held constitutional only if exigent circumstances exist throughout the duration of the search and seizure. Courts in this state, however, have time and again recognized that exigency is not a necessary element to a “plain view” seizure. State v. Lair, 95 Wash.2d at 716, 630 P.2d 427; State v. Marchand, 37 Wash.App. 741, 749, 684 P.2d 1306 (1984), rev’d on other grounds, 104 Wash.2d 434, 706 P.2d 225 (1985); State v. Johnson, 17 Wash.App. 153, 159, 561 P.2d 701, review denied, 89 Wash.2d 1001 (1977). A search can be upheld under the plain view doctrine in the absence of exigent circumstances, as long as the doctrine’s first element is satisfied. Lair, 95 Wash.2d at 716, 630 P.2d 427. In other words, exigent circumstances are merely one factor to be considered in determining if the seizing officers’ intrusion was justified. Lair, at 716, 630 P.2d 427.
Bell next argues that the sheriff’s officers needed a warrant to enter the residence and to seize the property found by the fire fighters because they constituted a separate state agency. A handful of Fourth Amendment cases have analyzed this issue. The majority of those cases holds that the warrant is not needed because the defendant no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy for that area of the residence where one officer is already present. See United States v. Green, 474 F.2d 1385 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 829, 94 S.Ct. 55, 38 L.Ed.2d 63 (1973) (warrant not necessary when secret service agent entered residence to take custody of coun*211terfeiting plates found by deputy fire marshal investigating the cause of a fire); Steigler v. Anderson, 496 F.2d 793 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1002, 95 S.Ct. 320, 42 L.Ed.2d 277 (1974) (warrant not necessary when police officers seized evidence of arson found by a deputy fire marshal during a warrantless investigation which occurred during and immediately after a fire was extinguished); United States v. Gargotto, 476 F.2d 1009 (6th Cir.1973) (warrant not necessary when records of betting activity were microfilmed by IRS agents 2 days after they had been seized by an arson investigator and a police officer); United States v. Brand, 556 F.2d 1312 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063, 98 S.Ct. 1237, 55 L.Ed.2d 763 (1978) (no warrant required when police officers entered house after another police officer had helped handle an emergency drug overdose and the second group of police officers observed evidence which formed the basis for a subsequent search warrant).
The only case supporting Bell’s position that the second agency needs a warrant is United States v. Hoffman, 607 F.2d 280 (9th Cir.1979). Hoffman conflicts directly with the majority of the cases in that it holds that a reasonable expectation of privacy remains in areas where fire fighters have entered. “[N]o citizen should reasonably expect that ... any sort of public officer may thereafter invade his home for purposes unrelated to the initial intrusion.” Hoffman, at 285.
We find the rationale of the majority cases persuasive and we reject the Hoffman analysis. Once the privacy of the residence has been lawfully invaded, it is senseless to require a warrant for others to enter and complete what those already on the scene would be justified in doing. See Green, at 1390; Steigler, at 798. We hold that where firefighters have lawfully discovered evidence of criminal activity under the plain view doctrine, it is not necessary for sheriff’s officers to obtain a warrant before entering a residence to seize the evidence.
There are, of course, limits on the actions of the police. When the police enter the residence, they are not allowed *212to exceed the scope of the fire fighters’ earlier intrusion. See Green, at 1390. In essence, they step into the shoes of the fire fighters. They cannot enter any area that the fire fighters were not justified in entering, nor seize any evidence that the fire fighters were not justified in seizing. In the present case, the sheriff’s deputies did not exceed their permitted scope of activity. They entered the residence, seized the property already discovered by the fire fighters, and did no more. Their warrantless seizure was valid under the Fourth Amendment.
State v. Bell, supra 108 Wash.2d at 196-201, 737 P.2d at 257-260 (footnotes omitted).
We are persuaded by the rationale of the Washington Supreme Court. Therefore, we hold that the evidence in the instant case, which had been observed in plain view by an assistant fire marshall who was on the premises performing a task within the scope of his duties,3 and which had been seized by a police officer summoned by the fire marshall, was properly seized without a warrant. Upon *213discovering the evidence in plain view, the fire marshall would himself have been justified in seizing the evidence. That he summoned a policeman to seize the evidence did not require the obtaining of a warrant, so long as the policeman did not extend the scope of the search. The policeman stood in the shoes of the fire marshall and could seize that which the marshall could have seized.
Our holding is narrow. We do not hold, as the author of the dissenting opinion has suggested, that fire or police personnel may, in the aftermath of a fire, “rummage” through an unburned apartment or conduct therein a general warrantless search in the hope of finding evidence of criminal activity. Such a search is precluded by the Fourth Amendment. We hold only that a fireman or fire marshall, who is properly inside premises in the course of his firefighting duties and responsibilities, may seize contraband or evidence of criminal activity other than arson which he inadvertently observes in plain view. Further, when contraband is observed in plain view by a fire marshall who is properly on the premises, he may summon a police officer who may observe and seize the contraband without a warrant.
In this case, there was no general search of appellee’s apartment. The fire marshall, who was lawfully in appellee’s apartment because of a fire, inadvertently observed in plain view that which he believed to be contraband. He thereupon summoned a police officer to confirm his belief and seize the drugs and drug paraphernalia. It was only after the defendant-appellee, who had been shopping, returned home, was confronted with the fire mar-shall’s observations, and consented to a further search of the apartment, that additional evidence was found and seized. Indeed, it was appellee who then led the police to the additional evidence, and no further search was conducted.4 It is these circumstances alone which are before this Court and upon which today’s holding is based.
*214The “plain view” doctrine is not dependent upon the existence of statutory authority to make searches or seize evidence of crime. If it were, then the absence of statutory authority in Pennsylvania would preclude the seizure by firemen of any evidence of crime from the site of a fire, whether the evidence was pertinent to arson or some other crime. This is contrary to the law in this Commonwealth. See: Commonwealth v. Smith, supra (firemen may seize evidence of arson found in plain view while investigating the cause and origin of a fire). The absence of express statutory authority to seize evidence of crime, moreover, would not be an adequate basis for the suppression of evidence. Cf. Commonwealth v. Morgan, 517 Pa. 93, 96 n. 2, 534 A.2d 1054, 1056 n. 2 (1987) (suppression of evidence is not appropriate remedy for violation of every rule of criminal procedure dealing with searches and seizures; rather, suppression is warranted only where fundamental constitutional rights have been implicated, the police have acted in bad faith, or the defendant has suffered substantial prejudice); Commonwealth v. Mason, 507 Pa. 396, 406-407, 490 A.2d 421, 426 (1985) (same). See also: Commonwealth v. Corley, 507 Pa. 540, 552, 491 A.2d 829, 835 (1985) (Larsen, J. concurring) (“the exclusionary rule will not be extended to areas where its application would not tend to achieve its primary purpose of deterring unlawful police conduct.”). It is only where a defendant’s constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures has been violated that suppression is required. There is no such violation where *215evidence of crime is inadvertently observed in plain view by a representative of the government who is lawfully in a position from which to make such observation. See: Commonwealth v. Kendrick, 340 Pa.Super. 563, 568-570, 490 A.2d 923, 926-927 (1985) (discussing requirements of plain view doctrine). See also: Commonwealth v. Pine, 370 Pa.Super. 410, 419, 536 A.2d 811, 816 (1988); Commonwealth v. Casuccio, 308 Pa.Super. 450, 468, 454 A.2d 621, 630 (1982).
Having concluded that the evidence in plain view was properly seized, we also reject the suppression court’s conclusion that the evidence found in the later consensual search was the fruit of a poisonous tree. Accordingly, the suppression order will be reversed.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction is not retained.
BECK, J., files a concurring and dissenting opinion.

. The Commonwealth may only appeal from a trial court’s order suppressing evidence when it certifies in good faith that the suppression order will terminate or substantially handicap its prosecution of the case. See: Commonwealth v. Dugger, 506 Pa. 537, 486 A.2d 382 (1985). In the instant case, it is clear that the suppression order will substantially handicap the Commonwealth’s prosecution.

. It was subsequently determined that all items seized belonged to Person, and charges against the girlfriend were dropped.

. Section 3104 of the Second Class County Code, which defines the duties and powers of a fire marshall or his assistants, specifically authorizes the ascertainment of the nature and value of the property damaged or destroyed in a fire. This section provides:
The fire marshal or one of his assistants shall attend, if practicable, all fires occurring in the county, and shall endeavor to save and protect from the fire all property in danger therefrom and to protect such property from loss by pillage and theft and from injury and destruction in any manner, and he shall have power to take any measures he may deem proper and expedient for that purpose, and he shall also have power to call upon any constable, policeman or citizen of any city, ward, borough or township in the county to aid and assist him in protecting and saving property, as aforesaid, and to aid and assist in carrying into execution any measures he may deem proper and expedient, as aforesaid, and he shall investigate and, if possible, ascertain the origin and cause of every fire occurring in the county, the nature and value of the property injured or destroyed thereby, whether said property was insured or not, and if insured, the amount of such insurance, by whom effected, for whose benefit and by whom the risk was taken, the names and places of residence of the owner or owners and of all parties interested in the property injured or destroyed and the nature and amount of such interest.
Act of July 28, 1953, P.L. 723, art. XXXI, § 3104, 16 P.S. § 6104. Montgomery County is classified as a Second Class (A) County.

. It was Officer McGowan who was initially summoned by assistant fire marshall Momorella to observe the drugs which Momorella had *214observed in plain view. Officer McGowan then contacted his supervisor, Sgt. Levy, who also entered appellee’s apartment for the purpose of observing the same evidence which had been discovered in plain view. The dissenting opinion states that an Officer DiSonni also entered appellee’s apartment. The testimony at the suppression hearing disclosed only that Officer DiSonni was present at the scene of the fire and it is not clear that DiSonni actually entered appellee’s apartment. What is clear from the suppression hearing testimony, however, is that no general search was conducted by the police of appellee’s apartment. Rather, Officer McGowan and Sgt. Levy limited their activity to observing and seizing the evidence which had been discovered in plain view, until such time as appellee returned home, consented to a further search, and actually led police to the additional evidence.