Standard for Due Diligence

Frequently, I hear people say "I didn't receive the summons!" from the Bucks County police and/or State Troopers.  In fact, one time a client found out about a warrant through a friend and the court staff admitted the screwed up his address.  If, you think the police and state screwed up in getting the warrant and summons to you, make sure you get your Bucks County criminal defense lawyer on the case to seek a dismissal.  

The Commonwealth bears the burden, through a preponderance of the evidence, to show they exercised due diligence in getting an individual to trial.  The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has stated, "While the Commonwealth undisputedly bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that due diligence was exercised by the police in their efforts to arrest a defendant, "due diligence," as the term is used in the Rule 1100(d) context, means reasonable efforts are required, not perfect vigilance or exhaustive and constant investigation".  Commonwealth v. Branch, 337 Pa.Super. 22, 486 A.2d 460 (1984).

The court must also look at the efforts to locate an accused must be steps taken by the prosecution rather than possibly meritorious efforts not undertaken.  So, you can't have a case where every rock must be looked under.  Instead, it is what rocks were lifted by the police in attempting to locate the individual.  

Compare and Contrast

Two cases show the difference in when the Commonwealth exercises due diligence and when they don't.  

Commonwealth v. Dorsey shows a potential light of what is due diligence.  In that case, the police acted with due diligence in that they went to appellee's house five times over six months, entered appellee's name in the Pennsylvania Crime Center Computer, and distributed appellee's photograph and the court found due diligence was exercised.  The court ruled that it is not the function of the courts to second-guess the methods used by police to locate accused persons. The analysis to be employed is whether, considering the information available to the police, they have acted with diligence in attempting to locate the accused. Deference must be afforded the police officer's judgment as to which avenues of approach will be fruitful.

Commonwealth v. Collins shows when due diligence was not exercised.  Essentially, the police made no effort to use an abundance of available information in this case.  In this case, the police never contacted the defendant's probation officer, despite the probation officer knowing the defendant's address, as the court state, "Although appellant, known as "Philly Dog," had a police record and was on probation, the record reflects that no effort was made to secure information or cooperation of the probation and parole offices."  They visited some homes, but the court ruled, "A single unsuccessful visit to the homes of two relatives, followed a month and one-half later by dropping one's card at the accused's mother's residence with a request to be contacted should the accused come calling, falls far short of due diligence."  

In these two cases, you can see that the efforts of the police matter and the standard of due diligence is determined on a case-by-case basis.