Commonwealth v. Amanda Haldeman No. CP-38-CR-0001418-2015

Criminal Action-Law-Automobile Accident-Possession of Contraband-Omnibus Pretrial Motion-Fourth Amendment-Search and Seizure-Hospital-Personnel-Policy-Inventory of Possessions-Government Agent

Defendant, who was charged with drug related offenses and reckless driving after a motor vehicle accident in which the vehicle she was driving overturned and personnel at the hospital located contraband on the Defendant’s person, filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion to Suppress Evidence, asserting that the seizure of the contraband from her clothes upon her arrival at the hospital violated her Fourth Amendment rights because hospital personnel were acting as agents of law enforcement when they searched her clothes.

1. A defendant seeking suppression of seized evidence has the initial burden of establishing standing and a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched and the items seized. After the defendant meets his or her burden, the burden shifts to the Commonwealth to show that the challenged evidence is admissible and was not obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights.

2. Every person has the fundamental constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

3. Where no evidence was presented indicating that the hospital personnel who conducted the search were acting at the direction of law enforcement and the record establishes that the search was conducted pursuant to hospital policy requiring an inventory of all emergency room trauma patient’s belongings upon arrival, the search and seizures was not conducted by the government in violation of Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.

L.C.C.C.P. No. CP-38-CR-0001418-2015, Opinion by Charles T. Jones, Jr., Judge, March 14, 2016.

Jonathan Faust, Esquire, for the Commonwealth

Nicholas Sidelnick, Esquire, for Defendant

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

OF LEBANON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION CP-38-CR-0001418-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

AMANDA HALDEMAN, Defendant

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14^th day of March, 2016, after careful consideration of the record and a Pretrial Hearing held on March 2, 2016, Defendant’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion to Suppress the Evidence and Dismiss Charges is hereby DENIED. Defendant is scheduled for Call of the List on April 19, 2016 and trial on May 2, 2016.

APPEARANCES:

Jonathan Faust, Esquire For Commonwealth

District Attorney’s Office

Nicholas Sidelnick, Esquire For Defendant

Public Defender’s Office

OPINION BY JONES, J.:

Before this Court is Defendant’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion to Suppress Evidence and Dismiss the Charges.

On March 12, 2015, Patrolman Kocher (hereinafter “Ptl. Kocher”) was dispatched to the 1400 block of Willow Street for the report of an accident. Ptl. Kocher was dispatched at approximately 7:37 a.m. Upon his arrival, Ptl. Kocher discovered a black Mercury Milan that was overturned in the road. The driver of the overturned car was Amanda Haldeman (hereinafter “Defendant”).

Ptl. Kocher tried to speak with Defendant, but was unable to have a conversation. First aid and safety personnel arrived shortly after Ptl. Kocher’s arrival and began to treat Defendant’s injuries. Ptl. Kocher began to speak with witnesses of the accident. Ptl. Kocher spoke with Daniel Burch (hereinafter “Burch”). Burch told Ptl. Kocher that he believed he witnessed the Defendant hide narcotics in her pocket after the accident occurred.

Defendant was transported to the Hershey Medical Center for treatment. Ptl. Kocher testified that he was at the scene of the accident for approximately forty-five (45) minutes. After leaving the scene of the accident, Ptl. Kocher testified that he responded to another call at the middle school. Ptl. Kocher testified that he was at the middle school for about fifteen (15) minutes. After he responded to the call at the middle school, Ptl. Kocher testified that he went to the police station to get the necessary paperwork to follow up with Defendant at Hershey Medical Center. Ptl. Kocher testified that he called the hospital to see if anything had been found on Defendant when the hospital personnel did an inventory of Defendant’s belongings. During his testimony, Ptl. Kocher testified that he could not remember if he called Hershey Medical Center from the police station or if he called while he was driving to the hospital. During his testimony, Ptl. Kocher stated that “it was safe to say” that an hour and fifteen (15) minutes had passed.

Ptl. Kocher testified that he does not know who he spoke to when he called Hershey Medical Center, but he believed that it was the call nurse. While on the phone, Ptl. Kocher testified that he asked the person who he believed to be the call nurse if there had been anything found on the Defendant while Hershey Medical Center personnel were conducting inventory of her belongings. The call nurse asked other nurses who were present at the time, and then informed Ptl. Kocher that another nurse had found a green, leafy substance on the Defendant, and Ptl. Kocher could recover the substance from hospital security.

At the hearing on March 2, 2016, Samantha Liddick (hereinafter Liddick), a Nurse at Hershey Medical Center, testified that she did not have any recollection of this case, but her signature was on the Chain of Custody form regarding Defendant’s belongings. Liddick testified that it is the hospital’s policy to do an inventory of all belongings of trauma patients that come into the Emergency Room. There is a standard inventory form that is completed upon every patient’s inventory search, and there is a separate form that is only completed upon discovering an item that must be taken to security. In this case, Liddick could not remember any details, but she testified that the form that was filled out was the form that indicates something was released to hospital security. Liddick testified that the time written on the form was 8:45 a.m., and that time indicated the time that the form was completed. Liddick testified that inventories are completed within 20 minutes of the patient arriving at the hospital. The form also stated that the substance found by Liddick at 8:45 a.m. was turned over to security at 9:45 a.m. Liddick also testified that the entire inventory is completed before anything is filled out and taken to security.

Defendant argues that when Ptl. Kocher called the hospital, he instructed the nurses to do a search of the Defendant, and this search led to the finding of the green, leafy substance. Defendant argues that the Hershey Medical Center personnel were acting as agents of law enforcement, and the search and seizure of the green, leafy substance from Defendant’s clothing violated her rights under the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution, and all evidence obtained as a result of that search and seizure should be suppressed and the charges should be dropped.

Defendant was charged with one (1) count of Possession of AB-Fubinaca (M), one (1) count of Possession of Paraphernalia (M), and one (1) count of Reckless Driving (S) on March 12, 2015. Defendant filed a Pre-Trial Motion to Suppress the Evidence and Dismiss the Charges on October 2, 2015. A Pre-Trial Hearing (herein the Hearing) was held before this Court on March 2, 2016. Patrolman Thomas Kocher and Hershey Medical Center personnel; Melanie Weaver, Samantha Liddick and Christine Shultz testified at the hearing. At the close of the Hearing, the Court stated that the matter was under advisement. The matter is now ripe for disposition.

The Rules of Criminal Procedure allow a defendant to make a motion to the court to suppress any evidence alleged to have been obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights. Pa. R. Crim. P. 581. When a motion to suppress has been filed, the Commonwealth has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence is admissible and was not obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights. Pa. R. Crim. P. 581(H); Commonwealth v. Ruey, 892 A.2d 802, 807 (Pa. 2006). The suppression of evidence is only appropriate where a violation upon which the motion to suppress is based touches on fundamental constitutional concerns, was conducted in bad faith, or has substantially prejudiced the defendant. Commonwealth v. Gentile, 632 A.2d 573 (Pa. Super. 1993). Questions of credibility and the weight to be accorded to witness testimony are issues within the sound discretion of the trial court. In re R.P., 918 A.2d 115 (Pa.Super. 2007).

A defendant seeking suppression of seized evidence has the initial burden of establishing standing and a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched and the items seized. Commonwealth v. Boulware, 876 A.2d 440 (Pa.Super.2005). After the defendant meets his or her burden, the burden shifts to the Commonwealth to show that the challenged evidence is admissible. Commonwealth v. Basinger, 982 A.2d 121 (Pa.Super.2009).

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress asserts that the search and subsequent seizure of the suspected narcotics from Defendant’s clothing by Hershey Medical Center personnel was an illegal search and seizure in violation of the Defendant’s rights under the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution because the Hershey Medical Center personnel were acting at the direction of a law enforcement officer, and therefore were acting as agents of law enforcement. The Defendant asserts that the seizure of the suspected narcotics by Ptl. Kocher from the Hershey Medical Center security office was a warrantless seizure in violation of the Defendant’s rights under the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution. Defendant requests that all evidence obtained as a result of the alleged unlawful seizure should be suppressed by this Court. Defendant further requests that, if this Court should suppress the evidence obtained, the charges against her be dismissed.

The Commonwealth argues that the Hershey Medical Center personnel were not acting at the direction of Ptl. Kocher, but instead were acting in accordance to the hospital’s policy. Ptl. Kocher testified that he never asked the nurses at Hershey Medical Center to perform a search on Defendant. He called the hospital to see if any contraband had been found on the Defendant because that was common procedure. The Commonwealth alleges that the search was lawful and the evidence found during the search should be admissible.

Every person has the fundamental constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. This right is set out in the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution. The United States Constitution states the following:

The Pennsylvania Constitution states the following:

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets the threshold of protection required and Article I Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution has been interpreted to provide more protection to individuals beyond that guaranteed by the United States Constitution under certain circumstances. See Commonwealth v. Cleckly, 558 Pa. 517 (1999).

In the current case, Defendant argues that the search of her belongings at Hershey Medical Center violated the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution, however there has been no evidence presented to indicate that the Hershey Medical Center personnel were acting at the direction of Ptl. Kocher. Two nurses from Hershey Medical Center testified that it is the hospital’s policy to take an inventory of all Emergency Room Trauma Patients’ belongings when the patients arrive to the hospital. There has been no evidence shown that indicates that the search made by the hospital personnel was conducted for any reason other than standard practice and compliance with hospital policy.

The United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution protect against unlawful searches and seizures by the government, therefore the inventory search that was conducted by Hershey Medical Center personnel does not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights because it was not a search and seizure conducted by the government or at the government’s direction.

For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds that the inventory search performed by Hershey Medical Center personnel was not an unlawful search and seizure, and Defendant’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion to Suppress the Evidence and Dismiss Charges is hereby denied. An Order will be entered consistent with the foregoing.