Commonwealth v. Griffin, 2011 Pa. Super. 138

Opinion by Panella, J:

The defendant was stopped for speeding.  When he was asked for his license and registration, he instead produced a police badge, and told the officer that he was a police officer.  After the traffic-stop, he was permitted to leave.

The stopping officer was suspicious, and investigated the defendant's claims to be a police officer.  He learned that although the defendant had once been employed by the Kingston Police Department, he had been fired.  He charged the defendant with impersonating a public servant, and an arrest warrant was issued and circulated.

On May 13, 2009, the defendant was sighted by police, and additional officers were dispatched to place him under arrest.  One of the officers was instructed to locate the defendant's car so that he would be intercepted if he attempted to flee.  The officer found the car, and waited there until he learned that the defendant had been taken into custody.  The local police department asked that the vehicle be towed so that they could obtain a search warrant.  Pursuant to the warrant, the local police department executed a search, and found a police badge, detective business cards, a tazer, flex ties, a black club, and other items which suggested that the defendant was impersonating a police officer.  He was tried, convicted, and appealed.

On appeal, the defendant claimed that the initial seizure of his vehicle was made without probable cause.  The Court disagreed, and held instead that:

It is reasonable . . . for constitutional purposes for police to seize and hold a car until a search warrant can be obtained where the seizure occurs after the user or owner has been placed into custody, where the vehicle is located on public property, and where there exists probable cause to believe that evidence of the commission of a crime will be obtained from the vehicle.

 The defendant also argued that the search warrant application, which was made a week after the initial traffic-stop, was stale.  Again, the Court disagreed, and held that a single week did not render the application stale.