Com. v. Forsythe, T.
217 A.3d 273
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- On June 3, 2015 a Lycoming County Narcotics Enforcement Unit (NEU) interdiction roving patrol briefed officers from multiple agencies to target drug activity; Sergeant Chris Kriner (Old Lycoming PD) participated as a part‑time NEU member.
- While patrolling outside his primary jurisdiction, Kriner observed a Chevy Blazer in a Williamsport shopping‑area parking lot; he followed and stopped it for a nonfunctioning license plate light. Both occupants were later found with drugs and arrested.
- Forsythe moved to suppress evidence, arguing the stop was unlawful because Kriner lacked authority under the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act (MPJA) and therefore violated the MPJA (and possibly the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (ICA) requirements for task forces).
- The trial court granted suppression of statements, drugs, and vehicle evidence; the Superior Court initially reversed, finding MPJA compliance based on a request to assist and a municipal drug task‑force agreement.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of Commonwealth v. Hlubin, which clarified the interplay of the ICA and MPJA and the scope of MPJA exceptions.
- After Hlubin, the legislature amended 42 Pa.C.S. §8953(a)(3) (effective July 2, 2019) to clarify that either (i) a request to aid, (ii) probable cause to believe aid is needed, or (iii) approved task‑force participation suffices; the Superior Court applied the amended §8953(a)(3) retroactively and reversed suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers needed an ICA intergovernmental agreement to lawfully operate together | Commonwealth: ICA not strictly necessary where MPJA exception applies | Forsythe: ICA compliance required for ongoing cooperative operations; absence invalidates extraterritorial acts | Court: ICA is required for ongoing, durational cooperation; but MPJA exceptions can independently authorize specific extraterritorial acts |
| Whether §8953(a)(3) requires contemporaneous probable cause or crime‑in‑progress for a requested aid | Commonwealth: clauses are disjunctive; a request alone can authorize action without contemporaneous probable cause | Forsythe/Hlubin: request must be tied to probable cause; both clauses import a probable‑cause element | Held (Hlubin): the word “otherwise” imports probable cause to both clauses under prior text; pre‑amendment §8953(a)(3) did not authorize prearranged checkpoints absent probable cause |
| Whether the NEU roving patrol stop violated the MPJA as interpreted in Hlubin | Commonwealth: Kriner was requested to assist and therefore had authority under MPJA exception | Forsythe: the NEU patrol was prearranged interpersonal cooperation requiring ICA compliance; MPJA limits prohibiting extrajurisdictional prearranged activity apply | Held (on remand, applying amended statute): post‑amendment §8953(a)(3)(i) authorizes action when an officer is requested to aid; Kriner’s stop therefore complied with MPJA as amended |
| Whether suppression of evidence was warranted for MPJA violation | Commonwealth: even if technical MPJA noncompliance, suppression not required (citing O’Shea balancing) | Forsythe: MPJA violation prejudiced rights; suppression appropriate | Held: suppression reversed because amended §8953(a)(3) applies retroactively and authorizes Kriner’s conduct; suppression unwarranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hlubin, 208 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2019) (interpreting interplay of the ICA and MPJA and holding pre‑amendment §8953(a)(3) required a probable‑cause element, limiting prearranged extraterritorial operations)
- Commonwealth v. O'Shea, 567 A.2d 1023 (Pa. 1990) (articulating case‑by‑case approach to suppression for MPJA deviations, weighing intrusiveness, deviation extent, and prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Merchant, 595 A.2d 1135 (Pa. 1991) (warning that MPJA exceptions must not undermine local control and police accountability)
- Commonwealth v. Forsythe, 164 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2017) (earlier Superior Court panel opinion reversing suppression based on MPJA request/municipal task‑force agreement; later withdrawn on Supreme Court review)