Com. v. Holmes, D., Com. v. Holmes, D. No. 2485 EDA 2015

Early-morning smash-and-grab burglaries at a Verizon store and a Radio Shack led detectives to 602 N. Randolph St., Allentown, based on surveillance, radio transmissions, and prior tips linking Holmes to similar New Jersey crimes.
Detectives surveilled the house and observed persons carrying a large blue tote into the backyard, a person in a camouflage jacket entering the front door, and items placed into a black Lexus and a green minivan; vehicles then left.
Allentown officers stopped the Lexus (Holmes was later found in police custody); a warrantless search of the Lexus revealed a camouflage jacket, masks, and a duffel containing ~80 cell phones matching serial numbers from the Verizon burglary.
A subsequent search of a stolen minivan revealed a mallet, crowbar, bolt cutters, and a towel; the warrant for Holmes’s residence was later conceded by the Commonwealth to lack probable cause and suppressed.
Holmes moved to suppress evidence from the Lexus and the residence; the court denied suppression for the Lexus evidence but granted suppression for the residence search. Holmes was convicted of receiving stolen property and sentenced to 2.5–5 years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Holmes)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Was the Lexus stop an unlawful investigative detention?	Stop lacked reasonable suspicion; no identification tying Holmes to the Radio Shack burglary.	Totality of circumstances (tips about Holmes, surveillance matches: blue tote, camouflage jacket, minivan, observed movements) furnished reasonable suspicion.	Stop was a lawful investigative detention supported by reasonable suspicion.
Was the warrantless search of the Lexus unlawful?	Search was fruit of illegal actions; lacked probable cause.	Observations (plain view of jacket/garbage bag), stolen minivan evidence, recovered tools and phones provided probable cause to search.	Warrantless vehicle search was supported by probable cause; admissible.
Should evidence referring to the blue tote and surveillance footage have been excluded at trial?	References and exhibits were tainted by the illegal residence search and prejudicial.	Detective Bruchak observed the tote independently before the residence search; defense did not contemporaneously object to much of the evidence.	Claims waived by failure to contemporaneously object; evidence admissible based on independent observations.
Is vehicle evidence "fruit of the poisonous tree" from the residence search?	Vehicle evidence flowed from the illegal residence search.	Vehicle search preceded the residence search; no antecedent illegality linking them.	No; vehicle evidence did not stem from the later illegal residence search.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (permitting investigative stops based on reasonable suspicion)
Commonwealth v. Arnold, 932 A.2d 143 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for suppression findings)
Commonwealth v. Randolph, 151 A.3d 170 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Pennsylvania categories of police-citizen encounters)
Commonwealth v. Reppert, 814 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Super. 2002) (reasonable suspicion assessed by totality of circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Wiley, 858 A.2d 1191 (Pa. Super. 2004) (reasonable suspicion can reside elsewhere in chain of command)
Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) (probable cause suffices for warrantless vehicle searches)
Commonwealth v. Roman, 714 A.2d 440 (Pa. Super. 1998) (upholding stops shortly after receiving a timely tip)
Commonwealth v. Povish, 387 A.2d 1282 (Pa. 1978) (admissibility of independently obtained descriptive evidence despite suppression of other items)
Commonwealth v. Revere, 814 A.2d 197 (Pa. Super. 2002) (brief detention in a police car does not automatically become custodial)