181 A.3d 337
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- At ~3:00 a.m. on June 2, 2015, Officer Dempsey stopped a rented Nissan driven by Kitchen for a turn-signal/parking-related traffic issue; Kitchen initially produced no ID and gave the name "Chelsea Thomas."
- Officer Dempsey, in uniform, ran checks that showed the provided name had a suspended license; officers then effectuated a live stop, removed Kitchen from the vehicle, and conducted searches.
- A swollen-looking Mountain Dew can in the driver’s cup holder was opened and found to contain 76 baggies of crack cocaine; additional baggies were found in the trunk and $145 on Kitchen.
- Officers later located a driver’s license bearing Kitchen’s true name and photo under the driver’s side floor area; both names showed suspended licenses.
- Kitchen was convicted at non-jury trial of PWID and False ID (18 Pa.C.S. § 4914); sentenced to incarceration and probation. She appealed the sufficiency of evidence for False ID, arguing police did not inform her she was the subject of an official investigation prior to her giving false identification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Kitchen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 4914(a) requires an officer to expressly inform a person they are the subject of an official investigation before false ID is punishable | Surrounding circumstances and officer conduct can suffice to "inform" a person; no verbal pronouncement required | Officer must be the one to inform the person they are the subject of an official investigation prior to presenting false ID; inferential notice is insufficient | Court reversed False ID conviction: statute requires the officer to inform the person (verbal or direct notice) before false identification can be criminalized |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard of review for sufficiency challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Barnes, 14 A.3d 128 (Pa. Super. 2011) (statute does not criminalize false ID given before being apprised of investigation; proper notice is required)
- In re D.S., 39 A.3d 968 (Pa. 2012) (Supreme Court: "informed by a law enforcement officer" requires communication from the officer; surrounding circumstances alone insufficient)