Com. v. Brophy-Desante, E.
Com. v. Brophy-Desante, E. No. 1849 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 23, 2017Background
- Police responded to a SAM crisis call that requested Brophy-Desante be taken for an involuntary emergency psychiatric exam under 50 P.S. § 7302 (a "302 commitment").
- Officers arrived at her home, announced themselves, and placed Brophy-Desante in handcuffs after she became uncooperative.
- Brophy-Desante requested her purse for the hospital; officers retrieved it and told her it would be searched for safety before transport.
- When an officer opened the purse he saw a transparent makeup container holding two plastic bags with suspected drugs; Brophy-Desante said the substance was methamphetamine; a field NIK test was presumptively positive.
- She was charged with possession of a controlled substance, moved to suppress the physical evidence and her statement (Miranda), was convicted by a jury, and sentenced to one year probation; she appealed suppression rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Brophy-Desante's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether search of purse was unlawful because scope exceeded officer-safety search | Officer exceeded safety-search scope; makeup container couldn’t hold a weapon; search unlawful | Officers lawfully seized her for 302 and may search person/items taken into custody for safety; container was transparent and incriminating nature apparent | Search upheld as valid safety search; evidence admissible |
| Whether plain-view observation was invalid because officers lacked lawful vantage or immediate apparentness | Officer not at lawful vantage; incriminating character not immediately apparent; no lawful access to makeup container | Officers lawfully in home for 302 seizure; transparent container made contents immediately visible | Observation lawful under plain view during valid safety search |
| Whether evidence should be excluded because inevitable discovery not proven | Hospital intake procedures weren’t shown to necessarily inventory and discover the items | Officer testified hospital security inventories items brought in from custody; evidence would be found during intake | Court found inevitable discovery alternative; evidence admissible even if search exceeded scope |
| Whether statement "it was meth" should be suppressed for lack of Miranda warnings | Statement elicited during custodial interrogation without Miranda; question was likely to elicit incriminating response | (Implicit) statement unnecessary to admission of evidence because contraband was visible and would be inevitably discovered | Court concluded defendant was in custody and statement should have been suppressed, but suppression of the statement was harmless because contraband lawfully discovered; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court 1966) (Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation)
- Commonwealth v. Kendall, 649 A.2d 695 (Pa. Super. 1994) (officers may search person and carried items for safety before transport)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 62 A.3d 433 (Pa. Super. 2013) (officers lawfully present to execute 302 can observe contraband in plain view)
- Commonwealth v. Ingram, 814 A.2d 264 (Pa. Super. 2002) (Miranda interrogation includes its functional equivalent; statements elicited likely to incriminate must be suppressed)
- Commonwealth v. Bailey, 986 A.2d 860 (Pa. Super. 2009) (inevitable discovery doctrine allows admission if prosecution proves contraband would have been found by lawful means)