Commonwealth v. Brian Hughes 2009 PA Super 240 (12/14/2009)
Topic: Forgery – Grading – Cashier’s Checks
Summary: The Superior Court concluded that a cashier’s check, unlike a personal check, is not a commercial instrument. Therefore, forging a cashier’s check is a second-degree felony.
*Note: In his Dissenting Opinion, Judge Fitzgerald concludes that a cashier’s check is not an “issue of money,” but a commercial instrument.
Commonwealth v. Richard Thomas 2009 PA Super 245 (12/16/2009)
Topic: Gun Crimes – Persons Not to Possess a Firearm – Operability of the Firearm
Summary: Under 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 6105, the firearm does not need to be operable for a defendant to be convicted of Persons Not to Possess.
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that Eric Jordan, a former ACORN worker charged with voter fraud in the aftermath of the 2008 elections, was found not guilty of the charges brought against him on Wednesday, December 16, 2009.
For more information, go to:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_658113.html
On December 15, 2009, West Mifflin, Pennsylvania (located near Pittsburgh) passed a new ordinance requiring gun owners to report their weapon stolen within 72 hours of discovering the theft. If owners fail to comply with the ordinance, they face a possible 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Opponents of the ordinance believe that it is an unreasonable burden on law-abiding citizens while doing little to deter criminals. Other opponents question the overall legality of the law.
For more information, go to:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/dailynewsmckeesport/s_657999.html
A Pittsburgh man was released from the Allegheny County Jail after he was held in custody for 14 months without being brought to trial. The Allegheny County District Attorney’s office claims that a computer glitch caused the office to miss the speedy trial deadline.
For more information, go to:
http://kdka.com/local/Wilkinsburg.rape.suspect.2.1346655.html
Commonwealth v. John Au 2009 PA Super 231 (12/01/2009)
Topic: Suppression of Evidence – Mere Encounter vs. Investigative Detention
Summary: Where an officer approaches a vehicle to see if the occupants are in need of help, the mere encounter is transformed to an investigative detention when the officer persists in asking questions after he has received information showing the occupants are not in need of help.
Illustration: The defendant was in a vehicle in public parking lot hours after the establishment at which he was parked had closed. The officer claimed that he approached the vehicle to determine whether the occupants needed any help. After approaching the vehicle, the officer asked the occupants what they were doing. The occupants responded that they were just hanging out. At that point, the officer asked for identification. Judge Bender concluded that, while the approach and question about what the occupants were doing was a mere encounter, the incident became an investigative detention when the officer asked for identification.
Judge Bender aptly noted (emphasis added),
While a person in Appellee’s situation may have surmised that the officer initiated the encounter to merely check upon the vehicle and its occupants, the subsequent request for identification from all of the vehicle’s occupants would have signaled to any reasonable person that the officer was unsatisfied with the response that the occupants were just hanging out, and that the officer wanted to investigate further. Knowing that the officer sought to investigate further and that this was no longer a situation where the officer was just checking in to see if the occupants were in need of assistance, no reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the encounter.
The Pittsburgh Tribune Review reports that a new business venture by Tony Ciotti, Mike Conley, and Danielle Danzuso helps people avoid driving under the influence by offering a paid designated driver service. The business, Pear Transportation Company, is the area’s first and only designated driver service. When a driver feels that she or he has had too much to drink, they can call Pear Transportation. The company will send out a driver who use the customer’s own vehicle to drive him home. The company’s owners hope their service will encourage drivers to act responsibly and avoid DUIs.
For more information about the Pear Transportation Company, go to:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/columns/heyl/s_654074.html
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that eight Allegheny County law enforcement agencies coordinated to execute 20 arrest and 18 search warrants for various drug charges in the Penn Hills area. While some warrants remained to be issued, at least 9 individuals were arrested.
For more information, go to:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09324/1015063-100.stm?cmpid=latest.xml
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office has arrested individuals alleged to be part of a cocaine-selling drug ring based in Monroeville, Pennsylvania. Fourteen people face charges related to the drug ring.
For more information, go to:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09320/1013937-100.stm?cmpid=latest.xml
Commonwealth v. Collin Rowe 2009 PA Super 215 (11/12/2009)
Topic: Warrantless Entry – Motion to Suppress
Summary: A police officer must be able to identify exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry into a home. An open door during the “typical waking hours of the night” with no other facts showing exigency is insufficient to justify a warrantless entry.
Facts: During a nighttime storm that caused downed powerlines, a police officer entered Rowe’s home through an open rear door. The officer witnessed nor received any reports of suspicious activity. The officer also did not receive any calls or requests for help at Rowe’s address. The officer announced his presence and proceeded to search the residence. The officer recovered a marijuana pipe. The officer took the pipe and left the residence. Rowe was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia (35 Pa.C.S.A. Section 780-113(a)(32)). The Superior Court concluded that the facts as presented were not sufficient to justify the officer’s warrantless entry into Rowe’s home.
http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Superior/out/A09011_09.pdf