Com. v. Bosworth

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. Dewolf

    No. H031412 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 26, 2008)

    Whiting, supra, 389 Md. at pp. 356-357 [885 A.2d at p. 798] [citing a Hawaii decision giving Fourth Amendment protection to a squatterโ€™s shelter when the state had long acquiesced in its presence on public land].) Even a private automobile whose owner is using it to trespass is subject to a warrant less search, for the driver of a โ€œvehicle . . . parked on the property of another person where it had no right to beโ€ (Commonwealth v. Bosworth (1983) 310 Pa.Super.Ct. 378, 381 [456 A.2d 661, 663] has no protected Fourth Amendment interest against the search or seizure of that vehicle. In sum, we accept a broad rule that โ€œa defendant lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in a dwelling unlawfully located on property belonging to the government or a third partyโ€ (State v. Adams (Ariz.Ct.App. 2000) 197 Ariz. 569, 573 [5 P.3d 903, 907]), especially if the defendant brought the abode to anotherโ€™s property in order to maintain a trespass.

  2. Commonwealth v. Glass

    2018 Pa. Super. 328 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    As our Supreme Court has long recognized, "one's expectation of privacy with respect to an automobile is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office." Commonwealth v. Holzer , 480 Pa. 93, 389 A.2d 101, 106 (1978) (emphasis in original); accordCommonwealth v. Bosworth , 310 Pa.Super. 378, 456 A.2d 661, 663-64 (1983). As in Blystone , once Glass opened the automobile to the CI, he risked that everything taking place within the vehicle would be recorded and given to the Detectives. Glass therefore relinquished his reasonable expectation of privacy, and the protections of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Accordingly, Glass is not entitled to relief on this claim.

  3. Commonwealth v. Enos

    J-A14033-17 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 8, 2017)

    "[E]ven though privacy protections are implicated under Article I, ยง 8, the heightened privacy concerns involved in a seizure from an individual's person are not present where an object is seized from a vehicle." Commonwealth v. McCree, 924 A.2d 621, 630 (Pa. 2007); see also Commonwealth v. Holzer, 389 A.2d 101, 106 (Pa. 1978) (expectation of privacy in one's vehicle significantly less than in one's home or office); Commonwealth v. Bosworth, 456 A.2d 661, 663-664 (Pa. Super. 1983) ("It is by now well settled that a person's expectation of privacy with respect to an automobile is significantly less than with respect to his or her home or office."). Automobiles are accorded a diminished expectation of privacy because of their "open construction, their function, and their subjection to a myriad of state regulations."

  4. Com. v. Higgins

    346 Pa. Super. 238 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985)   Cited 3 times

    Absent such an entry, the contents of the compartment were shielded from public view. Compare Commonwealth v. Grabowski, 306 Pa. Super. 483, 491, 452 A.2d 827, 831 (1982) (police view of vehicle identification number not search despite need to raise car on fork lift to view it, for "examination of the exterior of an automobile is not, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a `search'"); compare also Commonwealth v. Bosworth, 310 Pa. Super. 378, 456 A.2d 661 (1983) (where vehicle is parked in area posted against trespassing and keys have been left in trunk, defendant has lost reasonable expectation of privacy in contents of the trunk). Moreover, Brown's search was state action within the Fourth Amendment, for in conducting it, he did not act as a private individual but as a surrogate of the police.

  5. Com. v. Mason

    327 Pa. Super. 520 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)   Cited 6 times

    That the search of the appellant's vehicle both with and without a search warrant was illegal and without probable cause; and On this issue, see Commonwealth v. Bosworth, 310 Pa. Super. 378, 456 A.2d 661 (1983), an opinion of this court authored by the Honorable Donald A. Wieand. The court held that the defendant Bosworth, who parked his vehicle on property of another in violation of posted "no trespassing" signs, did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to stolen property stored in the trunk of his vehicle from which he had allowed keys to remain dangling while he committed a burglary.