legal writing_ open memo final

1. MEMORANDUM

TO: Beverly Broman. Esquire
FROM: James Yoke, Paralegal
DATE: June 29, 2015
RE: Commonwealth v. Christopher

I. INTRODUCTION
I was asked to write this memorandum in regard to our client, Stephen Christopher, and his
appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Our client contends that the Monroeville Police
Department violated his constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures,
when the Monroeville Police Department did not obtain a search warrant to search his bag and
car with a canine police dog. Therefore, his position is that without a search warrant, the search
was illegal, and all evidence obtained through the illegal canine search should be inadmissible.
The police department’s position is that they had reasonable suspicion to believe an illegal drug
transaction had just concluded, and did not need a warrant to search.
II. ISSUE PRESENTED
According to Pennsylvania law, did the police violate a person’s constitutional
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by using a trained dog to conduct a sniff
search of his person, and is probable cause required to conduct that search?

2. III. CONCLUSION
According to Pennsylvania Law, the police violated our client’s constitutional protection
against unreasonable searches and seizure’s by using a trained dog to conduct a sniff search of
his person. Our client will most likely win his appeal on the basis that the police failed to obtain
a search warrant to conduct their search. In addition, the police were required to have probable
cause to conduct the search since their search was of his person, and not a place. The police
also were required to obtain a search warrant from a judge, before they could conduct that
search. Therefore, our client should win his appeal due to the fact that the search of his person
was illegal.
IV. FACTS
On July 26, 1991, three members of the Monroeville Police department were dining at Alice’s
Delicious Doughnuts. Already seated in the restaurant were two gentlemen. Approximately two
minutes after the police officer’s arrived, three men entered the coffee shop. One of the men
had a navy blue gym bag in his possession. Initially, these three men sat together at a table in
the coffee shop. A few minutes after arriving, the three men left their table, and joined the
other two men in the coffee shop. One of the men who was already seated in the coffee shop
was our client, Steven Christopher. All five of the men spoke to each other, when one of the
men left to make a phone call at the pay phone in the restaurant. At this point there were four
men at a table, one of whom was our client, Steven Christopher. There was also one individual
making a phone call. Around this time the remaining individuals moved to a separate table that
was farther away from the police officers, who were dressed in plain clothes. Approximately

3. ten minutes later, the man with the gym bag placed it on the table near Steven Christopher.
After Steven looked around in a suspicious manner, he placed the gym bag under the table. At
this point Steven unzipped the bag slightly, placed his hands in the bag, removed them, zipped
the bag back up, and gave it back to the man who had given him the bag. Once this happened,
all of the four men nodded toward each other. At this point, the police believed they had just
witnessed a drug deal. One of the officers called the station requesting back up, and their drug
sniffing dog “Chip” be transported to a nearby to location. Approximately five minutes later,
three of the men, including Steven, left the shop and approached a Pontiac Grand Prix that was
parked in the parking lot. The police approached the men with their guns drawn, but at their
side. One of the officers had “Chip” perform a sniff search of the gym bag, where they found a
small amount of marijuana, $50,000, and a list of names and addresses. “Chip” then alerted the
officers to a smell inside the trunk of the car. The officers searched it and found 50 pounds of
marijuana. At this point all four men, including Steven, were arrested. A jury in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County convicted Steven of conspiracy to distribute narcotics. The
Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld his conviction, and he is now appealing his conviction to
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

4. V. DISCUSSION
Our client, Steven Christopher, seeks to explore whether the warrantless search by the police
canine drug dog of his person was an illegal search. We first need to find out what the court’s
requirements are to use a trained dog to conduct a search of one’s person.
When focused on the search alone, Terry v. Ohio, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed. 2d 110
(1983), explains the first interaction with a suspect, and how the police may initially search a
suspect. In Terry, the United States Supreme Court held that police “may be conduct a search,
patting down outer garments to check for weapons upon reasonable suspicion that the suspect
may be armed. The police must secure a search warrant, and they may detain the suspect for a
reasonable time while the warrant is sought.” Since Christopher’s person was being searched,
according to Terry, the police could only pat down Christopher’s clothing for a weapon. If they
wanted to do any searching after that, including a canine search, the police must obtain a
search warrant, and they could detain him while the warrant was being sought. However, they
could not search him or his property until they received a valid search warrant.
In Commonwealth v. Johnston, 515 Pa. 454, 530 A.2d 74 (1987), the court held that in
Pennsylvania, unlike federal law, the use of a canine dog would constitute a search. In Johnston,
the outside of defendant’s storage locker was searched with a canine dog. The storage locker
was considered a place. Since this is a place, only reasonable suspicion is required. In Johnston,
the court set rules on how a canine search of a place may be conducted. The court said the
police must “articulate reasonable grounds for believing that drugs may be present in the place
they seek to test; and they must be lawfully present in the place where the where the canine

5. search is conducted.” Also, since our client’s bag was considered a person, and not a place, the
rules necessary are person searches not property searches. Since this opinion of the court is
how canine searches can be conducted at one’s place, we must now explore if these rules apply
to a canine search of a person. In Pa. Const.art. I, § 8, the Pennsylvania constitution provides
protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. Since our client’s bag was attached
to his person, there is a higher burden of proof for the police.
In Commonwealth v. Martin, 534 Pa. 136, 626 A.2d 556 (1993), the defendant in that case was
in almost the exact situation as Steven Christopher. Martin was at a restaurant with a group,
one member left to make a phone call, the rest of the group left and were approached by
police, and a canine dog conducted a sniff search without a search warrant. The court held that
the Martin case applied the rule the court used in the Johnston of how to conduct canine
searches in Pennsylvania, except they found that since Martin’s bag qualified as a search of the
person, probable cause was necessary to conduct a search. What made the Martin case
different than Johnston was in Johnston the search involved a “place”, in Martin the search
involved a “person”. The court held in Martin that in addition to being lawfully at the time of
the search, and the police must have probable cause to believe that a canine search of a person
will produce contraband or evidence of a crime, and the police need to seek a search warrant.
In our situation, Christopher had his bag searched while standing in the parking lot of the
doughnut shop. Since he was holding the bag during the search, it would constitute a search of
his person. The police met the first requirement of lawfully being in the location at the
doughnut shop. Since his person was being searched the police needed to be able to have
probable cause that the search would be able produce contraband. It is not certain that the

6. police could reasonably expect that they would find contraband or evidence that a crime had
occurred because the police did not have probable cause our client was in possession of illegal
contraband.
In Commonwealth v. Rodgers, 578 Pa. 127, 849 A.2d 1185 (2004), the court held that “the
police can detain an individual as long as that the officer reasonably suspects that an individual
is engaging in criminal activity.” In Rodgers, the police stopped the defendant during a traffic
stop. The defendant appeared stressed and had invalid vehicle paper work. The police detained
him, and requested a canine dog for a sniff search. The defendant felt the police needed
probable cause, but it was the police officer’s position that they only needed reasonable
suspicion since the car was not his person. If they were searching his person, they would need
probable cause. Martin also states that if an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy
the police may need to have probable cause. In Martin, the defendant’s satchel that was
searched, he had an expectation of privacy that his belongings would not be searched. Martin,
Johnston, and Rodgers all say that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy over the
person. Since our client had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the police needed probable
cause to conduct a search. Steven could be detained for a reasonable time, while the police
obtained a search warrant, but they would need to have probable cause that there was illegal
contraband in the area that would be searched.
In Commonwealth v. Chase, 599 Pa. 80, 960 A.2d 108 (2008), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
held that police need to be able to “articulate reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle, and be
able to reasonably be able to expect additional relevant information concerning criminal
activity.” The court also held that without both of those present, the stop cannot be

7. constitutional on the basis of mere suspicion. This relates to our client. Stephen acted
suspiciously, but there were no acts which would suggest he actually committed a crime. By
stopping him the police cannot reasonably say they could expect to gain additional relevant
information that would suggest he was involved with criminal activity. The police could
approach him according to Terry, and frisk him for a weapon, but after that they would need
probable cause to search his property. However, since there was no weapon found that had no
basis to conduct a warrantless search.
In Commonwealth v. Matos, 543 Pa. 449, 672 A.2d 769 (1996), Matos saw two police officers in
a patrol car, and immediately ran. The two officers then pursued him in foot chase, eventually
the suspect discarded a firearm. Upon being apprehended, the officers found crack cocaine on
him. The court held that officers did more than approach him, and question him. The court
reversed his conviction and the evidence was suppressed. This related to our client because the
police followed him to the car with their weapons drawn, and conducted a warrantless search
without probable cause. These acts violated our client’s constitutional rights according to Pa.
Const.art. I, § 8.