Com. v. Hand, W.
2579 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 27, 2017Background
- At ~12:10 a.m. officers responded to a report of a man with a gun at a residence; the front door was open and then shut as officers exited their vehicle.
- Officer Crown saw two men (Hand and Lewis) inside a bedroom; Hand was holding a firearm. Crown announced himself; Hand retreated into the bedroom and shut the door. Lewis exited on order.
- Officer Crown opened the bedroom door, removed Hand (who no longer had the gun) and handed him to another officer; Hand and Lewis were then in custody outside the home.
- After handing Hand off, Officer Crown reentered the home and searched a bedroom closet, observed a firearm in plain view, and seized it.
- The trial court granted Hand’s motion to suppress the firearm; the Commonwealth appealed. The opinion before us is a dissent arguing the suppression order should be reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of reentry and closet search (protective sweep) | Search exceeded Buie protective-sweep limits because arrestees were in custody outside and officer lacked articulable suspicion of another threat in the bedroom | Reentry and closet search were justified by exigent circumstances/emergency-aid: officers reasonably could believe others (perpetrators or victims) remained inside | Dissent would reverse suppression: search reasonable under emergency-aid/exigent-circumstances and plain view doctrines |
| Applicability of Buie when arrestee removed from premises | Buie permits limited sweep only immediately adjoining arrestee at time/place of arrest; here arrest was completed outside, so Buie does not justify the closet search | Buie is not exclusive; emergency-aid/exigent circumstances can also justify warrantless entry/search when risk to others or ongoing crime is reasonably believed | Dissent: emergency-aid/exigent circumstances applied given broken window, yelling, open door, gun observed, possible additional occupants |
| Relevance of officer's subjective motive | Majority/trial court impute motive to officer (search for evidence) and view that as undermining safety justification | Subjective motive irrelevant; objective reasonableness governs (per Stuart) | Dissent: subjective motive irrelevant; objective circumstances control and supported entry |
| Plain view seizure of firearm from closet | Plaintiff: seizure improper because initial search was unlawful | Defendant: once closet was lawfully entered under exigent/emergency-aid rationale, firearm was in plain view and seizure was lawful | Dissent: plain view seizure valid if entry justified by exigency |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective sweep doctrine allows limited search of areas adjoining arrest for officer safety)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (exigency/emergency-aid can justify warrantless entry to protect life or avoid serious injury)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (officers may enter to render emergency assistance or prevent imminent violence; subjective motive irrelevant)
- Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (officers need not await worsening harm before intervening; exigent circumstances permit entry)
- Commonwealth v. Potts, 73 A.3d 1275 (Pa. Super. Ct. applying emergency-aid and Buie in a domestic-disturbance context)