PA Court Rules Flashlight Search of Shoebox Was Unconstitutional

Posted in Fourth Amendment on June 9, 2026

The Pennsylvania Superior Court, sitting en banc, recently issued a significant Fourth Amendment decision in Commonwealth v. Herlth that held that police violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches when a state trooper shined a flashlight through a small manufacturer’s hole in a closed shoebox inside a man’s home during an overdose response. The ruling reinforces the strong privacy protections afforded to individuals inside their homes and clarifies the limits of both the plain view doctrine and the community caretaking exception.

Background of the Case

Pennsylvania State Police responded to a drug overdose at Herlth’s residence. Emergency medical personnel were providing treatment when the police arrived. The trooper testified that his role was to provide security because overdose victims can sometimes become combative after receiving Narcan. While standing near Herlth, a trooper noticed a closed shoebox. The shoebox contained a small manufacturer’s hole approximately one inch in diameter. Using a flashlight, the trooper looked through the hole and observed what he recognized as “scramble” capsules, a street term commonly referring to fentanyl mixtures. The trooper then opened the shoebox and discovered 117 capsules.  Herlth was charged with Possession With Intent to Deliver, a felony offense.

Herlth sought suppression of the drug evidence and argued that the shining of the flashlight into the shoebox constituted a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, so the trooper should have obtained a warrant. The trial court rejected the argument and ruled that the evidence fell under the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement, meaning the evidence was observed in the plain view of the officer, so no warrant was needed. The trial court denied suppression, Herlth was convicted at trial, and Herlth then appealed to the Superior Court.

The Superior Court’s Decision

1. A Closed Shoebox Inside a Home Carries a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

• The DA argued that Herlth had no reasonable expectation of privacy because the shoebox was located in his living room and had a small hole in it.
• The court rejected both arguments. The court emphasized that the Fourth Amendment provides its strongest protections inside the home and further noted that closed containers generally receive constitutional protection because they are designed to conceal their contents from public view.
• Importantly, the court held that the small manufacturer’s hole did not eliminate Herlth’s expectation of privacy because the contents were not visible to a casual observer.

2. Using a Flashlight to Peer Through the Hole Was a Search

• The Superior Court also concluded the use of a flashlight to look through the hole in the shoebox was a “search” under the 4th Amendment.
• The court distinguished cases involving officers using flashlights to observe vehicle interiors or areas already exposed to public view. Instead, it found that the flashlight allowed the trooper to gain information that otherwise would have remained hidden within a constitutionally protected container.
• The court reasoned that the flashlight inspection constituted a deliberate intrusion into an area where Herlth maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy.

3. Neither Community Caretaking Nor Plain View Applied

• The Commonwealth argued that the trooper’s actions were justified under the emergency aid component of the community caretaking doctrine.
• The court noted that the office could have lawfully entered the home to assist with safety during the overdose response, but the search of the shoebox was unrelated to that purpose. The trooper testified that he was not medically trained and that his purpose included determining what the patient had overdosed on for possible criminal investigation.
  • Attorney Jason Dunkle won suppression in a DUI case in which the Commonwealth tried to argue that the police were lawfully permitted to make a warrantless entry into a home and then arrest a person under the “emergency aid” exception to the warrant requirement
• The court also rejected the Commonwealth’s reliance on the plain view doctrine. While the trooper was lawfully present in the home, the capsules themselves were not in plain view and instead required a flashlight to reveal the evidence.
• The court emphasized that the plain view doctrine allows officers to seize evidence already exposed to view but does not authorize expanding a search to uncover concealed items.

Why This Decision Matters

The Herlth decision highlights several important principles for Pennsylvania criminal cases:

• The home remains entitled to the highest degree of Fourth Amendment protection.
• Closed containers inside a home generally maintain constitutional privacy protections.
• Small openings or manufacturer’s holes do not automatically eliminate a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
• Police officers responding to medical emergencies may not expand their activities into criminal investigations without proper legal justification.
• The plain view doctrine cannot be used to justify warrantless searches that expose otherwise hidden evidence.

What This Means for Individuals Facing Drug Charges

Search and seizure issues frequently determine whether evidence can be used in criminal prosecutions. Even when officers lawfully enter a residence due to an emergency, constitutional limitations continue to apply.

If police exceed the scope of their lawful authority, evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches may be suppressed, potentially having a substantial impact on the outcome of a case.

Individuals charged with drug offenses should have an experienced criminal defense attorney carefully review the circumstances surrounding any police search to determine whether constitutional violations occurred.