Com. v. Castapheny, S.
Com. v. Castapheny, S. No. 269 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 27, 2017Background
- Police responded to a 911 report of a burglary in progress at an apartment; witnesses reported two African‑American males entered through a rear window and one carried a black book bag.
- Officer Slisz observed three men inside matching the report; one (Castapheny) moved from a front room to a rear room while officers were at the door.
- Slisz followed, performed a protective sweep, and observed a handgun and a black book bag on the bed in the rear room; Castapheny denied ownership of the bag.
- The named tenant, Jason Locher, signed a consent‑to‑search form; officers searched the bag and recovered a revolver; a second firearm and suspected controlled substances were seized from the scene and from Castapheny.
- Castapheny was convicted of carrying a firearm without a license; he moved to suppress the evidence attacking (a) his expectation of privacy in the rear room, (b) the warrantless entry/search, (c) the search of the book bag, and (d) the validity/scope of third‑party consent.
- The suppression court denied the motion; the Superior Court affirmed, concluding Castapheny lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rear room and had abandoned the book bag; Locher’s consent and exigent‑circumstances/plain‑view concerns supported the entry/seizures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Castapheny) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Expectation of privacy in rear bedroom | Castapheny was only a visitor but Commonwealth argued facts showed no exclusive possession and no reasonable privacy interest | Castapheny argued he used the bedroom exclusively and therefore had a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy | Court held Castapheny lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy (casual visitor; no right to exclude others) |
| 2. Lawfulness of warrantless entry / exigent circumstances | Commonwealth argued officers responded to burglary in progress, observed matching suspects, and exigent circumstances/protective sweep justified entry | Castapheny argued entry into the rear bedroom was unlawful and not justified by exigency or hot pursuit | Court held entry lawful under totality (burglary report, flight into back room, officer safety) and items were in plain view |
| 3. Search of the book bag (ownership/abandonment) | Commonwealth relied on Castapheny’s denial of ownership and view that he abandoned the bag, so no expectation of privacy | Castapheny contended opening the bag exceeded scope of consent and contraband nature wasn’t apparent | Court held he denied ownership (abandoned the bag) and bag could be searched; search lawful |
| 4. Third‑party consent (Locher) | Commonwealth: Locher, as sole lessee with authority, voluntarily consented to search the apartment | Castapheny argued third‑party consent was invalid or did not authorize search of areas/items at issue | Court held Locher had authority and consent was valid; even if consent followed initial entry, prior exigent/ safety justifications supported officers’ actions |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review for suppression rulings and role of appellate court)
- Burton v. Commonwealth, 973 A.2d 428 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standing and expectation of privacy principles)
- Sell v. Commonwealth, 470 A.2d 457 (Pa. 1983) (automatic standing for possessory offense defendants)
- Black v. Commonwealth, 758 A.2d 1253 (Pa. Super. 2000) (legitimate expectation of privacy and abdication of control)
- Barnette v. Commonwealth, 760 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Super. 2000) (abandonment analysis and intent)
- Dowds v. Commonwealth, 761 A.2d 1125 (Pa. 2000) (disclaimer of ownership can constitute abandonment)
- Caple v. Commonwealth, 121 A.3d 511 (Pa. Super. 2015) (warrantless search presumption, exigent‑circumstances exception, and plain view)
- Matlock v. United States, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third‑party common authority to consent to search)