For the Defense - Volume 2, Issue 3 - 2017 - 56

seized from the driveway without a warrant and
towed to a police garage. Four days later, a warrant was obtained to search the truck, which was
still in police custody.
Allocatur grant: "Whether the Superior Court
erred by holding that the automobile exception,
adopted in Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102
(Pa. 2014), allowed police to seize a vehicle from
the defendant's private residential driveway without a warrant."
Status: Pending. Argued March 7, 2017
Amicus Authors: Leonard Sosnov and David
Rudovsky of Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing & Feinberg LLP

Commw. v. Ward-Green:
Amicus Filed: April 28, 2017
Nature of case: This case raises issues arising
under the PCRA. Claims of "shifted science" are
usually presented under the "newly discovered
facts" exception to the PCRA. Even though changes in science may occur, it takes time to assess the
impact that such changes may have on a case and
obtain the needed support for the presentation
of such a claim. This case involves the interplay of
cases based on "shifted science" and the 60-day
period set forth in the PCRA for the presentation
of "newly discovered evidence."
Allocatur grant: "(1) Whether the exception to
the timeliness requirement of the PCRA for after
-discovered facts requires the petitioner to file her
PCRA Petition before verifying unknown, but suspected, facts through expert analysis.
(2) Whether the Court of Common Pleas' determination of the deadline to file a PCRA petition
for after -discovered evidence is entitled to deference by the Superior Court."
Status: Pending; briefing not completed.
Amicus Authors: Marc J. Sonnenfeld and A.
Lauren Carpenter, of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP

Commw. v. Valdivia:
Amicus Filed: May 15, 2017
(Defender Association of Philadelphia
and PACDL Joint Amicus)
Nature of case: Valdivia was pulled over for a
traffic offense. During the stop, officers formed
the belief that Valdivia may be transporting con-

For The Defense | Vol. 2, Issue 3

traband. The cops asked for consent to search
the car, and Valdivia purportedly gave consent.
Valdivia was then given two options-he could
wait in his car, or wait in the back of the police
car; Valdivia chose to wait in his car. Forty minutes later, another officer arrived with a K-9. The
officer who sought the initial consent to search
could not recall if he advised that a K-9 would be
involved. Although the officers were interested
in certain packages, they did not attempt to perform any search until the K-9 arrived. When the
K-9 arrived, the packages were removed from the
car and the dog gave an indication that narcotics
were present. At no time did Valdivia revoke his
consent or object to the search. Valdivia subsequently challenged the scope of the consent that
was provided.
Allocatur grant: "Whether, in a case of first impression, the Superior Court erred in holding that
a reasonable person would have understood that
their consent to a roadside search of their vehicle would encompass a canine sniff of all of the
packages contained inside the vehicle, and that
said consent was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary where the police officers withheld pertinent
information about the forthcoming search from
Petitioner, including that the canine search would
not start any sooner than an hour from when Petitioner's consent was given?"
Status: Pending. Not argued yet.
Amicus Authors: Aaron Marcus and Keir Bradford-Grey, of the Defender Association of Philadelphia

About the Author
Barbara Zemlock is
a Past President of
PACDL and currently is
Co-Chair of the Amicus
Committee.

Share this article

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Volume 2, Issue 3 - 2017