Click here to subscribe today or Login.
WILKES-BARRE — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week ruled that the state’s constitution requires police officers to obtain a search warrant or have urgent circumstances before seizing a vehicle from a residential driveway.
Attorney Peter Paul Olszewski, on behalf of client Daniel Loughnane, scored the victory in the state’s highest court — a victory Olszewski says is “a tremendous victory” for all Pennsylvanians.
Loughnane, 45, of Hanover Township, is charged with felony hit-and-run in the death of Rebecca McCallick, 19, after she was struck on Hazle Avenue in Wilkes-Barre on July 24, 2012.
Loughnane’s trial was to begin in March 2014, but has been delayed due to appeals by both sides regarding rulings related to the seizure of Loughnane’s Ford F-350 truck. Police seized the truck without a search warrant Aug. 9, 2012.
In March 2014, Luzerne County Judge Michael T. Vough issued an order stating that Wilkes-Barre police, acting without a warrant, illegally seized the truck belonging to Loughnane from his Hanover Township home and therefore it is inadmissible as evidence.
Vough also ruled that visual and audio identification of the truck made by McCallick’s boyfriend, John Schenck, at city police headquarters also is inadmissible, saying such evidence arose “due to the illegal seizure” of Loughnane’s truck, and thus is “determined to be the fruit of the poisonous tree.”
The seizure came 16 days after McCallick was struck by a vehicle. She died later at Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center. Loughnane stands accused of fleeing the scene of a fatal crash.
The state Supreme Court agreed with Vough’s decisions.
Olszewski said the high court’s ruling expands the right of privacy for all residents.
“The Supreme Court’s opinion is a tremendous victory for our client as well as for all citizens of Pennsylvania,” Olszewski said. “For Mr. Loughnane, the commonwealth is now prohibited from using illegally obtained evidence in trial. In the bigger picture, all Pennsylvanians now enjoy a significantly greater right of privacy in vehicles parked in their driveway.”
Olszewski was extremely critical of the probe, saying it “was one of the weakest investigations I’ve seen in nearly 40 years.”
He explained the Supreme Court ruling sends the case back to the state Superior Court to review Judge Vough’s decision that no urgent, or exigent, circumstances were present.
“This effectively continues to delay the trial for another year-and-a-half or more,” Olszewski said. “It’s been nearly six years since the date of the incident.”
In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted “the commonwealth alternatively argues that Loughnane has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the appearance or sound of his vehicle, rendering any evaluation of the infringement upon his constitutional rights unnecessary.”
The justices continued: “We reject this assertion because it misses the point entirely. It is one thing for the police to have a person identify a vehicle from a lawful vantage point on the street; it is quite another to enter onto a portion of a person’s property where the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, seize the person’s property without a warrant, and only after the seizure, allow the witness to view the vehicle and turn on the ignition of the vehicle so the witness can identify its appearance and sound as that of the vehicle involved in the accident.”