Com. v. Haslam, B., Jr.
138 A.3d 680
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Parole agents visited a single‑family home owned by Appellant's father (a parolee) based on neighbor complaints of heavy traffic, drug activity, and possible firearms. Parole conditions allowed warrantless searches of the parolee's residence.
- On arrival agents noticed a hypodermic needle outside and exterior video cameras; after a delay someone answered and Appellant and his paramour were seated in the kitchen while agents searched upstairs for the parolee.
- A parole agent searching an upstairs room (described by the court as a common/party room) found drug paraphernalia and firearms; state troopers were then called and Trooper Greenawald spoke with Appellant, who admitted the narcotics were his and consented to a search of his person.
- A subsequent warrant was obtained; the search yielded methamphetamine baggies, marijuana, scales, firearms, a phone, and cash. Appellant was charged with PWID and related offenses and moved to suppress the evidence.
- The suppression court found the upstairs room was not exclusively occupied by Appellant and credited parole agents' testimony that Appellant was downstairs when agents entered; it denied suppression. Appellant was convicted after a bench trial and appealed the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of parole agents' warrantless search of upstairs areas | Commonwealth: Parole agents lawfully searched areas of the home as part of supervision of the parolee and to locate him under the parole condition allowing warrantless searches | Haslam: The searched bedroom was exclusively occupied by him and Morrow and not subject to parolee's consent; agents had no authority to search it without consent or a warrant | Court: Search lawful because the room was owned by parolee and functioned as a common/party room, not an exclusively occupied separate bedroom; suppression court's factual findings supported by record |
| Whether the Commonwealth rebutted testimony that Appellant was upstairs and claimed exclusive occupancy | Commonwealth: Agent testimony placed Appellant at the door/kitchen when agents entered; no one told agents the room was exclusively occupied | Haslam: Testified he was upstairs and ordered out; Commonwealth failed to call the agent who allegedly ordered him out | Held: Suppression court credited Commonwealth witnesses; credibility determinations supported the record; lack of that agent's testimony did not defeat Commonwealth case |
| Legality of search of Appellant's person and seizure of cash | Commonwealth: Trooper informed Appellant he was free to leave; Appellant admitted the drugs were his and consented to a search of his person | Haslam: He was effectively detained for hours and strip‑searched; alleged consent was involuntary | Held: Court found Appellant was not under arrest, was told he was free to leave, and validly consented to the search; evidence from person was admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 46 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review on suppression rulings and deference to suppression court fact‑finding)
- Commonwealth v. Benton, 655 A.2d 1030 (Pa. Super. 1995) (suppression court's credibility determinations are for the trial court)
- In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (Pa. 2013) (scope of appellate review limited to the suppression hearing record)