Com. v. Archer, P.
3471 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- On May 28, 2012 appellant Phillip Archer checked into Knights Inn Room 125 with Rashida McClain, then was moved to Room 268; housekeeping later found a firearm under the pillow in Room 125.
- Hotel staff reported the gun; Trooper Belusko learned Archer had occupied Room 125, then moved to Room 268, and that Archer was a felon barred from possessing firearms.
- Troopers went to Room 268 mid-morning, knocked, announced, and entered to detain Archer (peaceably); Archer denied there was a gun in the room.
- Archer was taken to the state police barracks, Mirandized, and declined to speak; later a search warrant for Room 268 was executed and police recovered a .40-caliber Ruger pistol submerged behind the toilet.
- Archer was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, moved to suppress the evidence and statements (denied), was convicted by jury, sentenced to 5–10 years, and after post-conviction relief his direct appeal was reinstated nunc pro tunc.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Archer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless entry/detention of Room 268 | Entry/detention was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances (weapon discovery, felon status, risk to public/officers) | Entry was without probable cause or exigency and thus unconstitutional | Court held troopers had probable cause and exigent circumstances; entry lawful |
| Statements pre-warnings and post-arrest | Pre-warned or spontaneous statements admissible; post-Miranda statement given after warnings | Deny admission: pre-Miranda denial should be suppressed; later statement was product of illegal arrest and after invocation | Court held pre-warning denial was a voluntary spontaneous utterance (no interrogation); court credited testimony that Miranda warnings were given before the post-arrest statement; suppression denied |
| Probable cause in affidavit for search warrant | Affidavit recited gun found in Room 125, Archer’s occupancy and transfer to 268, his return to 125 before gun disappeared, and his felony history—sufficient under totality of circumstances | Affidavit insufficient on its face to support probable cause | Court held affidavit supplied a substantial basis for probable cause; warrant valid |
| Use of independent source doctrine | Not argued below in Rule 1925(b) | Asserted on appeal that the warrant relied on illegally obtained information | Issue waived for failure to include in Rule 1925(b); court did not address merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Dean, 940 A.2d 514 (Pa. Super. 2008) (hotel rooms: warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable; factors for exigent circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 24 A.3d 1037 (Pa. Super. 2011) (definition of probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 972 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2009) (definition and examples of exigent circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Gaul, 912 A.2d 252 (Pa. 2006) (Miranda interrogation inquiry focuses on suspect’s perceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14 (Pa. Super. 2008) (volunteered statements admissible without Miranda)
- Commonwealth v. Arthur, 62 A.3d 424 (Pa. Super. 2013) (totality of circumstances test for warrants)
- Pa. R. App. P. 1925 jurisprudence as applied in Commonwealth v. Dozier, 99 A.3d 106 (Pa. Super. 2014) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement are waived)