Com. v. Jackson, S., 294 MDA 2021

Background

Trooper Fleisher stopped a teal Volvo on I-78 for heavily tinted windows; occupants were driver Travis Price, front-seat passenger Shaquarn Jackson (Appellant), and rear passenger Matthew Woodstein.
Price admitted he had no valid driver’s license; while the troopers investigated, they discovered Woodstein had an outstanding warrant and arrested him.
Price consented in writing to a search of the vehicle; the trooper found a 9mm magazine in the fuse panel and an unloaded Kel-Tec 9mm pistol hidden under the hood.
Appellant and Price were handcuffed, read Miranda warnings, and after a brief private conversation Appellant told officers "It's mine," admitted buying the gun and conceded he had no license.
Appellant’s pretrial suppression motion was dismissed when he was late to a scheduled hearing (counsel did not object); the suppression issues were later renewed mid-trial and denied. A jury convicted Appellant of carrying a firearm without a license and receiving stolen property; he was sentenced to 24–48 months.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
1. Whether the court erred by dismissing Appellant’s pretrial suppression motion because he was late.	Dismissal was an abuse of discretion and deprived Appellant of a hearing.	Defense counsel did not object; issue waived.	Waived for appellate review because counsel failed to object or seek reconsideration.
2. Whether the traffic stop lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause (tint violation).	Trooper lacked lawful basis; tint violation not established and no citation issued.	Trooper credibly observed tint so dark he could not see inside, giving probable cause to stop.	Stop was lawful: trooper had probable cause under §4524(e)(1) based on inability to see into vehicle.
3. Whether the consent search exceeded lawful bounds because the stop was unlawfully prolonged (so consent was coerced).	Even if stop was initially lawful, it was unlawfully extended; consent was tainted fruit of illegal detention (invoking Shabezz).	Trooper developed independent reasonable suspicion (driving without a license) and probable cause (warrant for Woodstein) to extend the stop; Price voluntarily consented.	Search lawful: detention was properly extended by independent grounds; Shabezz inapplicable; Appellant lacked a demonstrated privacy interest in Price’s car.
4. Whether Appellant’s confession was involuntary and therefore inadmissible (affecting sufficiency).	Confession was coerced by prolonged/illegal stop, handcuffing, and threats to arrest both men for conspiracy.	Confession was brief, after Miranda warnings; questioning was noncoercive and Appellant spoke voluntarily.	Confession admitted as voluntary under totality-of-circumstances; claim fails (sufficiency argument waived in briefing).

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings and custodial interrogation principles)
Commonwealth v. Shabezz, 166 A.3d 278 (Pa. 2019) (evidence from an unconstitutional stop can be fruit of the poisonous tree; passenger need not show privacy interest if stop illegal)
Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884 (Pa. 2000) (consent is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 164 A.3d 1255 (Pa.Super. 2017) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Commonwealth v. Harris, 176 A.3d 1009 (Pa.Super. 2017) (probable cause for stop when officer cannot see into vehicle for tint violation)
Commonwealth v. Postie, 110 A.3d 1034 (Pa.Super. 2015) (absence of citation does not negate legality of stop)
Commonwealth v. Enimpah, 106 A.3d 695 (Pa. 2014) (distinction between standing and expectation of privacy)
Commonwealth v. Viall, 890 A.2d 419 (Pa.Super. 2005) (possessory charge confers standing to challenge seizure)
Commonwealth v. Millner, 888 A.2d 680 (Pa. 2005) (defendant must show personal privacy interest to prevail on suppression)
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716 (Pa. 2013) (totality of circumstances test for voluntariness of statements)