THE APPELLATE BRIEF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR PENNSYLVANIA
Ms. Kimberly Hall
Appellant,
v.
The State of Pennsylvania
Appellee
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
Appeal from the judgment of the District Court of Berks County, Pennsylvania
Criminal Division. November 2021, Docket No. CA19P21-7
Your Name-Attorney
Attorney for Plaintiff
Address
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 2
II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 2
III. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 3
IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 4
A. Nature of the Action 4
B. Procedural History 4
C. Factual History 4
V. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 5
VI. ARGUMENT 6
A. Did the trial court err in convicting the defendant of criminal activities? 6
B. Did the authorities violate the Pennsylvanian State legislation by conducting drone surveillance without a search warrant? 7
VII. CONCLUSION 8
VIII. RELIEF 9
IX. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This court operates within the jurisdiction specified in the United States Federal Legislation and the State of Pennsylvania legislation. The defendant/Appellee filed a timely appeal concerning the final judgment of the District Court of Berks County on November 10th, 2021
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
California v. Ciraolo………………………………………………………………………476 U.S. 207 (1986)
Dow Chemical Co. v. the United States…………………………………………………476 U.S. 227 (1986)
Florida v. Riley…………………………………………………488 U.S. 445, 109 S. Ct. 693 (1989)
Long Lake Township v. Todd Maxon………………………………………………. COA 349230 MSC 162946
STATUES
The Pennsylvanian State legislation, Act 78 of 2018 (HB 1346)
The Pennsylvania Statutes Title 18 Pa.C.S. A Crimes and Offenses § 4103
The Pennsylvania Crimes Code 18 Pa.C.S. 3921.
The Pennsylvania Crimes Code 18 Pa.C.S. 3903.
The Pennsylvania Crimes Code 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3925
The Pennsylvania Crimes Code 18 Pa.C.S § 3505
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Did the trial court err in convicting the defendant of criminal activities?
Trial Court Answer: NO
Defendant’s Answer: Yes, because there was insufficient evidence of criminal intent.
Did the authorities violate the Pennsylvanian State legislation by conducting drone surveillance without a search warrant?
Trial Court Answer: NO
Defendant’s Answer: Yes, because the law prohibits any drone search in private property without a search warrant.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Action
This appeal results from the defendant being convicted of theft, fraud, trafficking in stolen property, and changing vehicle identification numbers under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3921, in the District Court Berks County, on November 10th, 2021.
Procedural History
The appellant/ Defendant was convicted of theft, fraud, trafficking in stolen property, and changing of vehicle identification numbers on November 10th, 2021, in the District Court of Berks County by the court’s Judgment, Redmond Keen. The defendant applied a timely Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeal’s Clerk’s office on November 15th, 2021.
Factual History
Ms. Kimberly Hall stands convicted of theft, fraud, trafficking in stolen property, and changing vehicle identification numbers on November 10th, 2021. This occurred after local officials used drones to monitor her neighborhood after receiving information about many chop shops in the area. Meanwhile, Hall maintains a tiny yard within her complex that is well-fenced and surrounded by dense plants and big trees. Trespassing is also prohibited at Hall, according to a warning sign. In a video obtained by the larger complex’s drones, multiple wrecked vehicles, a mound of license plates, and numerous automotive components and tools were all visible. The police grabbed Hall and charged her as a result.
During the trial, several witnesses informed the court that the town went into a panic mood after noticing drones hovering over the area earlier in the morning hours. During the commotion, properties were damaged, and some assaults were reported. The community people called the local police due to escalating paranoia. One of the witnesses told the court that he had monitored radio transmissions between anti-government groups planning for “something big” with the aid of drones. According to the witness, drones began hovering between his garage and the house around 4.00 AM before the defendant, Ms. Hall, was taken by the police at 5.00 AM.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
According to the Pennsylvania Crimes Code 18, Pa.C.S. Sec. 3921, theft is defined as the “unlawful” taking into possession of another person’s property with the “intention” to them strip off their property. Under the Pennsylvania Statutes Title 18 Pa.C.S.A § 4103, if a person destroys, removes, or conceals any will, deed, mortgage, security document, or other paper for which the law permits public recording with the “aim” to deceive or hurt anyone, he commits a felony of the third degree. It, therefore, means that the statutes look at the “criminal intent” of the action. On the other end, the Pennsylvanian State legislation prohibits unwarranted aerial surveillance of private property. Unless the lawful officers have a genuine reason to believe that the defendant was involved in criminal activity, any form of search using drones should be legal and warranted. Therefore, the trial court erred because there was insufficient evidence that the defendant had been involved in criminal activities for local authorities to conduct searches using drones without a search warrant.
ARGUMENT
Did the trial court err in convicting the defendant of criminal activities?
The Pennsylvania Crimes Code 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3921 clearly defines theft as unlawful taking or disposition of a movable or immovable “property of another” with intent to “deprive” them thereof. Property is defined as anything that has value, while property of another is defined as anything of the value that another person (other than the actor) has a claim and interest in. The actor has no right to take it even if they have an interest in the same property. It, therefore, means that any person who unlawfully takes the property of another is subject to punishment as provided in this statute.
Depending on the circumstances, Theft by Unlawful Taking might be classified as a misdemeanor or a felony. The value of the stolen property determines the seriousness of the offense. The grading of stealing crimes is detailed in 18 Pa.C.S. 3903. If you are charged with Theft by Unlawful Taking in Pennsylvania, you will almost surely be charged with Receiving Stolen Property. The statute that covers receiving stolen property is 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3925. If you keep something knowing it has been stolen, you are guilty of receiving stolen goods in Pennsylvania. If someone steals something, it stands to reason that they must keep it. You are unlikely to be forced to plead guilty to both charges by the District Attorney’s Office. They’ll virtually always try to persuade you to plead guilty to a charge of theft or receiving stolen property. The subject of whether these charges should be combined for sentence purposes in Pennsylvania is still being debated.
In Ms. Hall’s case, it is clear that the authorities had no substantial evidence that links the defendant with any form of unlawful taking of property of another, neither did she commit any fraud. On the record, there was a public concern due to the “operation of multiple automotive chop shops” within the local community. This means that the local authorities unfairly targeted the defendant because there were other similar businesses within the same area, yet the officers only searched her property. Theft is graded based on the manner and degree of commitment. According to § 3903 (a.2), theft may be termed as of first-degree felony if it involves firearms or the value of the property being received is $500,000 and above. The second-degree felony is described in subsection (a) as a theft committed during the war or the disaster as long as it violates section 3921. If the value of the stolen item is above $2,000 or motor-propelled automobile, the felony is graded as a second degree.
Therefore, Ms. Hall is confident that the trial court did not determine if she was involved in theft, fraud, and trafficking in stolen goods. Thus, the court erred in convicting her of crimes she did not commit.
Did the authorities violate the Pennsylvanian State legislation by conducting drone surveillance without a search warrant?
The Pennsylvanian State legislation, Act 78 of 2018 (HB 1346), explains how the use of unmanned aircraft amounts to a violation of the law. Section One of § 3505 was amended to define the “intentional” use of unmanned aircraft to conduct surveillance of “another person’s private place” as an offense. In addition, the statute mentions that if the surveillance was conducted in a manner that infringed reasonable fear of bodily harm, it amounts to violation. The local authorities had an “intent” to use drones to search the defendant’s property because the drones were explicitly seen hovering on her property. Similarly, the drone surveillance caused “reasonable fear” of bodily harm on the area’s residents. According to one of the witnesses, the use of drones caused panic in the whole site, and in the process, properties were destroyed and at “least one person assaulted.”
The Section Two of § 3505 prohibits the use of unmanned aircraft by the local regulation in a manner that contradicts the Section One of this statute. The section allows the municipality to use drones within its boundaries without being prohibited by the law, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3505. The municipality boundary is defined as the city, incorporated township, borough, or optional charter municipality. Ms. Hall had indicated “NO TRESPASSING” on her property, meaning her privacy was primary. She had protected her yard vicinity by planting tall trees and thick shrubs. The apartment she resided in had slide doors without windows and a roof to prevent aerial and horizontal views.
Ms. Hall has a substantial argument that the local authorities violated the law by infringing her right to privacy. The fact that thethe leaders did not present solid evidence to back their warrantless aerial search on her private property amounts to the violation of the State of Pennsylvanian statute 18 Pa.C.S. § 3505.
CONCLUSION
Ms. Hall’s primary argument is that the trial court erred in convicting her of theft, fraud, trafficking in stolen property, and changing of vehicle identification numbers. There was insufficient evidence that the defendant was involved in the unlawful taking of another person’s property to deprive them of their property. In addition, the local authorities violated the legislation by co ducting warrantless aerial search in her private property. According to the argument presented above, Ms. Hall (the defendant/appellant) requested the Court of Appeals for Pennsylvania to reverse the trial court’s decision and vacate the defendant’s conviction.
RELIEF
Ms. Halls can now go forward and file a complaint against the local authorities of Berks County for unlawfully conducting a warrantless search in her private property. In addition, the nature of the search caused reasonable fear of bodily harm, which led to a state of commotion with the town. As a result, some properties were destroyed, and “at least one person was assaulted” during the process.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR PENNSYLVANIA
MS. KIMBERLY HALL,
Defendant / Appellee
v.
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Appellate
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I acknowledge that I am the attorney for the defendant/ Appellee and certify that a current and authentic copy of Appellee’s Brief has been served to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for Pennsylvania via the United States Postal Service on November 20th, 2021.
Your company’s Name
Attorneys at Law
By: …………………
Your Name as an attorney
Attorney for Defendant/ Appellee
November 12th, 2021