Com. v. Dunkins, A.
229 A.3d 622
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2020Background
- Early morning robbery at Moravian College dorm: two masked men posing as campus police forced entry, held victims at gunpoint, stole ~$1,000 and marijuana, and assaulted victims.
- Campus police asked the college’s Systems Engineering Director to produce Wi‑Fi connection logs for the access point near the dorm; records showed three nonresident devices logged in at the time, the only male device belonging to Alkiohn Dunkins.
- Police shared the Wi‑Fi data with municipal detectives; a roommate/neighbour (Colin Zarzecki) later testified Dunkins bragged about the robbery and displayed cash; victims identified Dunkins from prior contact and connection to stolen property.
- Dunkins moved to suppress the Wi‑Fi connection data, arguing Fourth Amendment protection under Carpenter (CSLI/warrant requirement); the trial court denied suppression, finding consent via the college’s computing policy and distinguishing Carpenter.
- A jury convicted Dunkins of robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, receiving stolen property, and simple assault; he was sentenced to an aggregate 5–10 years and appealed, raising suppression, sufficiency, and weight claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Dunkins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the warrantless acquisition of campus Wi‑Fi connection logs violated the Fourth Amendment (Carpenter/CSLI) | The Wi‑Fi logs were limited campus network data analogous to a tower‑dump or security camera; college policy waived users’ expectation of privacy so no warrant required. | Carpenter requires a warrant for CSLI; the Wi‑Fi data invaded Dunkins’ privacy in his physical movements and should be suppressed. | Denied suppression. Carpenter was distinguished (narrow), logs were campus‑confined and users consented via college policy; data analogous to tower‑dump/security camera. |
| 2) Sufficiency of the evidence as to identity and conspiracy | Circumstantial proof (Wi‑Fi placing Dunkins’ device at scene, Zarzecki’s statements, victim’s prior contact) sufficed to prove Dunkins was a perpetrator and conspirator. | Wi‑Fi only shows a device near the scene and could be used by others; no direct proof Dunkins possessed the phone or agreed to commit robbery. | Evidence sufficient. Circumstantial evidence and corroborating testimony supported identity and conspiracy convictions. |
| 3) Whether verdicts were against the weight of the evidence (credibility of Zarzecki) | Credibility determinations are for the jury; Zarzecki’s explanations for prior inconsistent testimony were for the jury to weigh. | Zarzecki lied at the preliminary hearing and was convicted of crimen falsi, so his trial testimony was unworthy of belief and verdicts should be set aside. | Weight claim denied. Trial court and jury permissibly credited Zarzecki; appellate court will not reweigh credibility absent a palpable abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (U.S. 2018) (historical CSLI implicates reasonable expectation of privacy; holding is narrow and did not resolve tower‑dumps or limited network logs)
- United States v. Adkinson, 916 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2019) (service‑agreement or provider consent can permit disclosure of CSLI/tower‑dump data; Carpenter did not invalidate tower‑dump practice)
- Medlock v. Trustees of Indiana University, 738 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2013) (residence in on‑campus housing can be conditioned on consent to searches/inspections)
- Commonwealth v. Sodomsky, 939 A.2d 363 (Pa.Super. 2007) (voluntary third‑party access to computer contents defeats reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Commonwealth v. Mbewe, 203 A.3d 983 (Pa.Super. 2019) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Baumgartner, 206 A.3d 11 (Pa.Super. 2019) (review of sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Rapak, 138 A.3d 666 (Pa.Super. 2016) (scope of appellate review limited to suppression‑hearing record)