148 A.3d 792
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- In Feb 2010 Simonson was arrested near a shooting scene after witnesses and the victim identified him; police recovered shell casing and bullet fragment.
- Post-arrest, Detective Kraeer swabbed Simonson’s hands with a dry, sticky swab for gunshot residue (GSR); the lab later tested the swab and found GSR.
- Simonson moved to suppress the GSR evidence as an unconstitutional warrantless search; the suppression court denied the motion after a hearing.
- After a mistrial and appeal, Simonson was retried, convicted of aggravated assault and carrying a firearm without a license, and sentenced; he appealed, raising only the suppression issue.
- The Superior Court assumed the swab was a search but held it reasonable as a search incident to arrest because the intrusion was minimal and the test served important governmental interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless GSR swab was lawful | Commonwealth: GSR swab permissible as a search incident to arrest | Simonson: Warrantless swab was an unreasonable search; no exigency and warrant could have been obtained or hands bagged | Court: Swab was a reasonable search incident to arrest; suppression denied |
| Whether McNeely exigency analysis requires case-by-case review for GSR | Simonson: McNeely means no categorical exigency; courts must assess exigency case-by-case | Commonwealth: Court need not reach exigency because search incident to arrest applies categorically | Court: Declined to apply McNeely; search incident to arrest controls and is categorical |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (discusses historical pedigree and categorical nature of search-incident-to-arrest doctrine)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (instructs balancing intrusion against government interest when founding-era guidance is absent)
- Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (U.S. 2013) (recognizes diminished privacy expectations for arrestees and upholds DNA swab for identification)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (defines scope of searches incident to arrest to protect officer safety and preserve evidence)
- Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1973) (upholds fingernail scraping as a limited search incident to arrest)
- Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884 (Pa. 2000) (explains exceptions to warrant requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for suppression rulings)