Shuttleworth Law P.C.

Shuttleworth Law P.C.

Call 888-529-3486
For a Free Case Evaluation

  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Criminal Defense
      • Assault & Domestic Violence
      • Burglary, Robbery & Theft
      • Computer Crimes
      • Criminal Appeals
      • Criminal Investigations
      • Drug Crimes
      • DUI Defense
      • Expungements
      • Gun Crimes Defense
      • Homicide, Manslaughter, & Murder
      • Sex Crimes
      • Violent Crimes Defense
      • White-collar Crimes
    • Personal Injury
      • Bicycle Accidents
      • Car Accidents
      • Construction Accident
      • Medical Malpractice
      • Motorcycle Accidents
      • Pedestrian Accidents
      • Premises Liability
      • Wrongful Death
    • Protection From Abuse (PFA)
      • PFA Defense
      • PFAs for Victims
    • Strike 3 Holdings Defense
  • About Us
    • Brad V. Shuttleworth
    • Recent Case Results
    • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Shuttleworth Law P.C. Client Portal
    • FAQs
  • Contact Us Now

Commonwealth v. Arter: Exclusionary Rule and Motions

Published on Apr 9, 2017

Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down the opinion in Commonwealth v. Arter (Pa. 2016) over three months ago, on December 28, 2016, its importance to Pennsylvania jurisprudence, as it relates to the application of the exclusionary rule for unconstitutional searches and seizures at probation and parole violation hearings, makes it worthwhile to talk about so that as many can be aware of it as possible.

In a nutshell, before Arter, Pennsylvania did not apply the exclusionary rule to illegally-obtained evidence at parole and probation violations, applying the same standard as the United States Supreme Court has to the United States Constitution — i.e, no motions to suppress evidence at these hearings.  Now, post-Arter, the exclusionary rule, permitting motions to suppress evidence, apply at these hearings in Pennsylvania under Article 1, Section 8, of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

You can download and review a PDF copy of the opinion here.

Overview of the Case

In Arter, the defendant was summoned to a revocation hearing after his Adult Probation Officer (“APO”) Richard Anglemeyer claimed that Arter had violated a condition of his parole. Anglemeyer was travelling with Officer Darin Bates when he Arter conversing with another individual on the street. Anglemeyer recognized him as one of his parolees. According to Officer Bates, Anglemeyer asked that he stop the vehicle and Anglemeyer approached the Arter.

He introduced himself as his parole officer, gave him his reporting instructions, and then asked if he could search him. Arter declined the search, but Anglemeyer continued on with a pat down search. He found crack cocaine in his pockets and turned the case over to Officer Bates, who then found a second bag, a scale, a cell phone and $21.

Charges Against Arter

Arter was charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Because of the new charges, the parole officer issued a detainer against Arter, and requested a revocation hearing. At a hearing on the new criminal charges, he litigated a motion to suppress evidence, which was granted, because the judge concluded that the search was not supported by reasonable suspicion.

Therefore, any evidence found as a result of the illegal search had to be suppressed from evidence.  The Commonwealth did not appeal the decision, but instead filed a nolle prosequi (a formal withdrawal of the criminal charges).

However, because Arter was on parole, the Commonwealth sought to revoke his parole by way of a parole revocation hearing.  On January 13, 2014, Arter filed a motion to suppress the illegally-obtained evidence from the parole hearing, under the privacy protections of Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

At the parole revocation hearing, the trial judge denied the suppression motion based on long-standing precedent that the exclusionary rule for suppression of illegally-obtained evidence cannot be used to exclude evidence from parole or probation revocation hearings.  Consequently, the trial judge revoked his parole, and resentenced Arter to his back time.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately found that the APO had no reasonable suspicion, therefore making his warrantless search of Arter unjustified. The court also decided that his motion to suppress should have been granted at the parole revocation hearing. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the order revoking his parole, holding that the warrantless pat-down search was without reasonable suspicion and in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The Court Rules in Arter’s Favor

The Supreme Court, in ruling in Arter’s favor, looked to the law of sever other states in the application of motions to suppress in the context of parole and probation revocation hearings. Importantly, they noted that Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater protections than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore all of the evidence found during the search had to be suppressed with respect to both the new criminal charges and at the parole revocation proceeding.

The Arter case set new precedent in Pennsylvania jurisprudence in the area of probation and parole revocation hearings. Before Arter, there was no suppression of evidence in parole and probation revocation hearings, which put individuals who were on probation or parole in a difficult position because they could be searched unlawfully and then have no recourse. Arter also was a drastic blow to the Commonwealth’s use of Daisy Kates hearings, which are hearings to revoke parole or probation before a criminal trial occurs on new charges.

Now, people who are facing both new criminal charges and a parole violation hearing can have illegally-obtained evidence suppressed from both proceedings. 

Final Thoughts

Pennsylvania’s constitution provides for the suppression of evidence based on Article 1, Section 8, of its Constitution.  Pennsylvania has a long history of providing greater protections in this area of the law than the United States Constitution.  In addition, the exclusionary rule as applied to the Pennsylvania Constitution is to allow individuals to vindicate their privacy rights (as opposed to the reasoning of the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which exists to provide a deterrent to law enforcement from violating individuals constitutional rights). Hopefully, now that evidence can be suppressed in revocation hearings in Pennsylvania, parole and probation officers, as well as police officers, will be better deterred from illegal stops, searches, and seizures, even of probationers and parolees.

*Carlton Pierre, currently a Drexel University undergraduate co-op student, contributed to this blog post.
Did you enjoy this piece? Check out this article on the admissibility of fingerprint evidence.

Were You Charged with a Crime in Pennsylvania or New Jersey?

If so, I can help, and I’m not afraid of taking on tough cases, either. Put an innovative and experienced criminal defense lawyer on your side by contacting me at Shuttleworth Law P.C. for a Free Case Evaluation. Call 888-529-3486 or message me here directly to request yours today.

Probation and Parole

Categories

  • Civil Rights (3)
  • Criminal Defense (180)
    • Appeals (1)
    • Arrests (4)
    • Assault (2)
    • Burglary (2)
    • Child Abuse (1)
    • Computer Crimes (7)
    • Conspiracy (2)
    • Contempt (3)
    • Corruption (2)
    • Criminal Law Courts (21)
    • Domestic Violence (4)
    • Drug Charges (4)
    • DUI (5)
    • Evidence (4)
    • Expungements & Pardons (3)
    • Felonies (7)
    • Forgery (3)
    • Gun Charges (18)
    • Homicide (7)
    • Insurance Fraud (3)
    • Manslaughter (4)
    • Misdemeanors (2)
    • Murder (1)
    • Pleas (1)
    • Police Conduct (9)
    • Prisons & Jails (11)
    • Probation and Parole (4)
    • Property Crime (1)
    • Rape (1)
    • Robbery (4)
    • Search & Seizure (31)
    • Sentencing (18)
    • Sex Crimes (6)
    • Traffic Stops (5)
    • Violent Crime (4)
    • Warrants (4)
    • Weapons (5)
    • White-Collar Crimes (2)
    • Wire Fraud (1)
  • Federal Indictments (1)
  • General Legal News (17)
  • Law Firm News (8)
  • Legislation (6)
  • Personal Injury (5)
    • Car Accidents (1)
    • Fault (1)
    • Pedestrian Accidents (1)
    • Statute of Limitations (1)
    • Wrongful Death (1)
  • Protection From Abuse (PFA) (7)
    • PFA Defense (5)
  • Restraining Order (1)
  • Statutes of LImitation (1)
  • Strike 3 Holdings (8)
  • Uncategorized (2)

Placeholder. Do not Delete.

google
Wentao Lu 2 weeks ago
Very satisfied by the service provided by Shuttleworth! Before the commitment, Mr. Brad Shuttleworth had a detailed zoom meeting free of charge on my case which made is super easy for me to trust him. He gave me thorough instructions how to prepare the case on my end and settled my case very quickly, much better than what I expected. I will definitely ask him for help in the future if I need his legal service again and strongly recommend to anyone I know.
...
google
Mike Seansy 2 weeks ago
I highly recommend Shuttleworth Law. Brad was incredibly professional and kept me informed every step of the way. He went above and beyond to make sure everything was handled smoothly. I truly appreciate his dedication and expertise. You won’t be disappointed!
...
google
Josh “Jay” Delgado 3 weeks ago
I couldn’t be more grateful for the exceptional legal support I receive, Brad is always professional, responsive, and truly has my companies best interests at heart every step of the way. His knowledge, attention to detail, and dedication makes every stressful situation so much easier to manage. Communication is always clear and timely, and I feel confident knowing we have someone so capable in my companies corner. I highly recommend his services to anyone in need of a skilled and trustworthy attorney.
...
google
H Wai 1 month ago
Being caught up in a lawsuit was a nightmare, I was glad that I found Brad during this disturbing time. I had talked to a few attorneys about my case, Brad was the one who could give me trustworthy and honest advice. He is patience, experienced and professional. I would recommend him to anyone who needs an honest attorney.
...
google
Jamie Wiebrand 2 months ago
Brad helped me through a difficult situation. I'm not sure where we would have been without him.
...
google
Greg Hake 2 months ago
I was very pleased with Brad, he went out of his way to settle for me.
...
google
Julie Brown 2 months ago
If you have question or need help for yourself or a family member Brad is very helpful. He will guide you through each step of the process. He was quick to respond to additional questions. He will ensure you get the best outcome.
...
google
Zach Parnell 3 months ago
I highly recommend working with Brad and his team.
...
google
Marty Kassowitz 3 months ago
I was both impressed and comforted by Brad's very professional handling of an upsetting legal situation. His care and attention were flawless and appreciated.
...

Shuttleworth Law, P.C.
New Jersey Office:
1040 Mantua Pike
Wenonah NJ 08090
856-681-0185

Pennsylvania Office:
By appointment only

Call 888-529-3486
Available 24/7 for emergencies

Business Hours
Monday – Friday
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
TikTok
X (Formerly Twitter)

This website is for informational purposes only. Information presented isn’t legal advice and doesn’t form attorney-client relationships. Past results aren’t indicative of future results as all cases are unique. Laws affect each situation differently.

Copyright © 2005-2025 Brad V. Shuttleworth, Esq., Shuttleworth Law P.C. | Privacy Policy