skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 134827 Find in a Library
Title: Criminal Procedure -- Pennsylvania Strips the Inventory Search Exception From Its Rationale -- Commonwealth v. Nace, 524 Pa. 323, 571 A.2d 1389, cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 426 (1990)
Journal: Temple Law Review  Volume:64  Issue:1  Dated:(Spring 1991)  Pages:267-279
Author(s): J T Lukens
Date Published: 1990
Page Count: 13
Type: Survey
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: The inventory exception to the fourth amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure is prompted by administrative and caretaking considerations, rather than by probable cause. However, in Commonwealth v. Nace, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended the inventory search exception to include police confiscation of a telephone number written on the cover of an address book found in the arrestee's wallet, thereby leaving the police authority to seize an arrestee's personal effects during an inventory search almost unlimited.
Abstract: Nace was different from other inventory search cases previously upheld by courts in that the phone number seized was not immediately identifiable evidence of criminal activity. By giving the police such broad investigatory powers as part of a routine inventory search, the court eliminated the general proscription against an investigatory pretext in the context of inventory searches. By stripping away the exception from its rationale, the court provides little guidance to lower courts analyzing inventory searches. Furthermore, the author criticizes the court for failing to provide sufficient analysis to uphold the admission of the telephone number; had the court evaluated the facts under a search incident to arrest analysis, the evidence could have been admitted without ignoring established precedent. 109 notes
Main Term(s): Rules of evidence; Search and seizure laws
Index Term(s): Pennsylvania; State supreme courts
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=134827

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.