Com. v. Davis, R.
2264 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 11, 2017Background
- On July 13, 2015, parole agent Jeffrey Theobald observed Richard Davis (a parolee he supervised) stop his car, appear to search the trunk, then leave driving; later Davis walked through a vacant lot carrying a white plastic bag.
- Theobald watched Davis place the bag behind an overgrown bush and then disappear without the bag; Theobald then approached Davis, questioned and patted him down, and placed him in handcuffs.
- Theobald retrieved the white bag from the bush; it contained a large Ziploc bag of marijuana. City police arrived and Davis was arrested and charged with possession and possession with intent to deliver (PWID).
- At the suppression hearing the court suppressed Davis’s custodial statements (Miranda violation) but denied suppression of the physical evidence (the abandoned bag). The court found Davis abandoned the bag before any contact.
- After a jury trial (second trial following a mistrial) Davis was convicted of both offenses; sentenced to 13–26 months for PWID (possession conviction merged). Davis appealed the denial of suppression of the marijuana.
Issues
| Issue | Davis’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was no reasonable suspicion for Theobald’s warrantless stop/search | Theobald lacked reasonable suspicion; parole-search statute inapplicable because pat-down was for weapons not parole violations | Theobald acted within supervisory authority (61 Pa.C.S. §6153) and had reasonable suspicion from observed conduct | Court held the physical evidence was admissible: Davis voluntarily abandoned the bag before any police contact; no reasonable-expectation-of-privacy remained |
| Whether suppression of custodial (Miranda) statements required suppression of the marijuana as fruit of the poisonous tree | Because the custodial seizure that produced Miranda issue began when Theobald followed/recognized Davis, all evidence seized should be suppressed | Marijuana was abandoned prior to Theobald’s contact; suppression of statements remedies Miranda violation but does not taint previously abandoned property | Court held Miranda suppression did not require suppression of the marijuana because abandonment preceded contact and was not coerced |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Shoatz, 366 A.2d 1216 (Pa. 1976) (test for abandonment: intent inferred from objective facts; abandonment destroys reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Commonwealth v. Ibrahim, 127 A.3d 819 (Pa. Super. 2015) (abandoned property may be seized unless abandonment resulted from illegal police conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Tillman, 621 A.2d 148 (Pa. Super. 1993) (evidence abandoned before police showed interest is not subject to suppression as fruit of poisonous tree)
- Commonwealth v. Pizarro, 723 A.2d 675 (Pa. Super. 1998) (mere approach by police does not constitute coercion forcing abandonment)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 33 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discarded item retained by defendant’s volition despite police presence; not forced abandonment)