## Facts

- Allentown police executed a search warrant at “Games Galore,” an amusement arcade business in which Larry Sell was a partner.
- The warrant sought firearms stolen in a recent burglary.
- Officers found and seized several firearms from open shelves beneath a counter in an area accessible to all employees.
- Sell was not present during the search.
- The Commonwealth charged Sell with receiving stolen property and criminal conspiracy; the receiving-stolen-property charge required proof of possession.
- Sell moved to suppress, arguing the warrant was defective because the confidential informant’s reliability was not adequately established.
- The trial court held Sell had automatic standing as a defendant charged with a possessory offense and suppressed the seized firearms.
- The Superior Court reversed, ruling automatic standing was no longer valid and that Sell failed to show actual standing.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted review to decide whether automatic standing remains available under Article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution for possessory offenses.

## Issues

1. Whether Article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides automatic standing to a defendant charged with a possessory offense to challenge an allegedly unlawful search and seizure.
2. Whether Pennsylvania should follow federal Fourth Amendment doctrine eliminating automatic standing and instead require a defendant to prove a personal expectation of privacy.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court’s standing ruling.
- The Court held that defendants charged with possessory offenses retain automatic standing under Article I, section 8 to challenge the admissibility of seized evidence.
- The Court reinstated the trial court’s conclusion that Sell could litigate the legality of the search and seizure.

## Legal Principles

- Under Article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, a defendant charged with an offense for which possession of the seized item is an essential element has automatic standing to seek suppression of that evidence.
- Pennsylvania may interpret Article I, section 8 to provide broader protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the federal Fourth Amendment.
- Automatic standing in possessory cases prevents forcing a defendant to make potentially incriminating admissions of possession merely to obtain suppression review.
- The Commonwealth’s decision to prosecute a possessory charge justifies allowing the accused to contest how the core evidence was obtained without separate proof of a personal privacy interest.

## Conclusion

Pennsylvania retained automatic standing under Article I, section 8 for defendants charged with possessory crimes, allowing them to challenge allegedly unlawful searches and seizures without proving an independent expectation of privacy.


Commonwealth v. Sell, 504 Pa. 46, 470 A.2d 457 (Pa. 1983)