Paraphernalia Charge Dismissed Because of Warrantless Search

Warrantless Search of State College Apartment

The State College police responded to a report of the odor of marijuana in the hallway of a State College apartment building. The police sniffed around the frames of apartment doors until they believed that they found the apartment from which the odor was emanating. The officer knocked on the door, two residents responded, and the residents allowed the officer to enter. The officer briefly spoke with the residents to inform them about the odor and reason for the police presence. The officer then ordered the residents to exit the apartment, and she walked them out. The officer re-entered the apartment to conduct a search for people to make sure that no indvidiuals were present that could destroy evidence. While searching for people, the officer noticed a marijuana bong in plain view. The officer then obtained a search warrant to search the entire apartment. The residents were charged with misdemeanor offenses of Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana for Personal Use under 35 P.S. 780-113(a)(31) and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.

Violation of Constitutional Rights

State College criminal defense attorney Jason S. Dunkle sought a dismissal of the charges based upon the warrantless search of the apartment that led to the discovery of the bong. Everyone knows that the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution normally requires the police to obtain a search warrant PRIOR to entering a home to conduct a search.  The police are not generally allowed to search, find incriminating evidence, and then use that evidence to obtain a search warrant after the fact.  That is simply not how the law works.  In this case, the officer’s initial entry into the apartment was lawful because the residents consented or permitted the entry.  No warrant is needed to enter a residence or search an area IF the person consents.  In this case, while the residents consented to the initial entry, they did not consent to the second entry and search.  Therefore, the officer’s re-entry and subsequent search violated Client’s constitutional rights.

At the initial court proceeding, the prosecutor refused the defense request to dismiss the charges. The prosecutor proposed that the matters be resolved via ARD. In the pre-trial phase, Attorney Dunkle advised the proseuctor of his intent to file a motion to suppress evidence based upon the officer’s warrantless entry and search of the apartment. Ultimately, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the misdemeanor possession charges if Clients paid approximately $300.00 in court costs.  After the charges were dismissed, petitions were filed Centre County Clerk of Courts to commence the expungement process to have the records of the cases destroyed and removed from the Clients’ criminal records.