233 A.3d 910
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- At ~2:00 a.m. in a high‑crime Pittsburgh neighborhood, officers observed Arrington’s rental car cross the double‑yellow centerline into the oncoming lane and remain there for ~2–3 seconds; officers initiated a traffic stop on suspected DUI and lane violation.
- Officers removed Arrington from the vehicle, handcuffed him at the rear of the car, and one officer ran an NCIC check that showed a revoked concealed‑carry permit.
- Officer Macioce searched the passenger compartment and opened a closed shoebox on the back seat, discovering a handgun (later identified as stolen).
- After arrest, a follow‑up search of Arrington and the vehicle yielded heroin (multiple bags), a digital scale, currency, a stamp bag on Arrington, and cell phones. Arrington refused a blood draw.
- Arrington’s pretrial suppression motion was denied, he was convicted at non‑jury trial of multiple firearms and drug offenses plus traffic offenses, sentenced to probation, and appealed.
- The Superior Court held the stop was supported by probable cause under §3301, but the protective search lacked reasonable suspicion; it suppressed the handgun and all derivative evidence, reversed the firearms/drug convictions, and affirmed the traffic convictions; case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Arrington's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Probable cause for the traffic stop (§3301 right‑of‑way) | Crossing the centerline was a momentary, minor deviation and did not justify a stop | Officer observed the entire vehicle in the oncoming lane for >2 seconds and would have blocked oncoming traffic; this established probable cause | Probable cause existed under §3301; stop affirmed |
| 2. Reasonable suspicion to conduct protective search of vehicle while Arrington was handcuffed | No furtive movements, no weapons in plain view, Arrington was handcuffed and out of reach; officers lacked articulable suspicion he could access a weapon | Late‑night stop in high‑crime area and observed nervous/slow movements justified frisk/search for officer safety | No reasonable suspicion for protective search; initial search unconstitutional; handgun and all derivative evidence suppressed; firearms/drug convictions reversed |
| 3. Search incident to arrest / inventory justification for vehicle search | Search was investigatory (to find evidence), not a legitimate inventory or lawful search‑incident‑to‑arrest | Officers acted to secure evidence and for officer safety after arrest | Court did not reach merits after finding initial search unlawful; suppression granted on that basis |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence for traffic offenses (disregard lane / failure to keep right) | Momentary crossing insufficient to prove violation beyond a reasonable doubt | Officer testimony of crossing and remaining in oncoming lane supported statutory violation | Evidence sufficient to support convictions under §3301 and §3309; traffic convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Enick, 70 A.3d 843 (Pa. Super. 2013) (probable‑cause analysis for §3301 lane violation where vehicle stayed in oncoming lane)
- Commonwealth v. Garcia, 859 A.2d 820 (Pa. Super. 2004) (momentary/minor lane deviations analysis under §3309)
- Commonwealth v. Rosa, 734 A.2d 412 (Pa. Super. 1999) (protective search justified where furtive movements, weapons in plain view, nighttime stop)
- Commonwealth v. Buchert, 68 A.3d 911 (Pa. Super. 2013) (furtive movement + extreme nervousness can support reasonable suspicion to frisk)
- Commonwealth v. Simmons, 17 A.3d 399 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Terry totality of circumstances applied to traffic stops)
- Commonwealth v. Cartagena, 63 A.3d 294 (Pa. Super. 2013) (no reasonable suspicion where only nighttime stop and nervousness; no furtive movements)
- Commonwealth v. Enimpah, 106 A.3d 695 (Pa. 2014) (Commonwealth’s initial burden to show defendant lacked privacy interest in searched area)
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)