Com. v. Jefferson, T.
2021 Pa. Super. 116
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- On April 25, 2017, Pittsburgh police ran a vehicle license plate and learned the registered owner was Taylor Jefferson and that there was an outstanding extradition warrant for him. The NCIC check provided no photo and officers did not know what Jefferson looked like.
- The vehicle (driven by appellant) pulled to the curb; officers parked behind, illuminated the interior, and approached to identify the driver and verify the warrant.
- The driver (appellant) said he left his ID at home but gave his name; as officers spoke, one observed him reach into his right pocket and grasp a firearm. Officers recovered the gun and arrested him for carrying a firearm without a license.
- Appellant moved to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an unlawful seizure; the trial court denied suppression, convicted and sentenced him to 42–84 months.
- On appeal the Superior Court considered the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kansas v. Glover and Pennsylvania developments including Commonwealth v. Alexander, and held that Glover controls the Fourth Amendment analysis and that Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution is coextensive with the Fourth Amendment on these facts. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to effect an investigative detention by inferring the registered owner (Jefferson) would be in/operating the vehicle | Officers lacked reasonable suspicion because they only inferred the owner would be the driver; warrant not yet verified and officers did not know the owner’s appearance | Kansas v. Glover permits the commonsense owner-as-driver inference; the plate check and warrant provided more than enough suspicion to stop/detain | Applying Glover, the court held the inference was reasonable and satisfied Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion; detention justified |
| Whether Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment here (i.e., requires more than the Glover inference) | Section 8’s heightened privacy protection requires identity verification before a stop; Glover is inconsistent with Pennsylvania privacy values | Appellant’s Section 8 claim was asserted but Glover should be applied; Section 8 is coextensive with the Fourth Amendment on this issue | Under Edmunds factors, court concluded Section 8 does not require a different rule here and is coextensive with the Fourth Amendment as applied; no relief |
| Whether Appellant waived his state-constitutional challenge by not developing it below | Appellant preserved Section 8 in his suppression motion and 1925(b); Glover arose during appeal so fuller briefing was not possible below | Commonwealth argued the claim was inadequately developed and waived | Court found no waiver given the unusual timing of Glover and preserved the Section 8 claim for review |
| Effect of Commonwealth v. Alexander (overruling Gary) — does it require rejecting Glover under Section 8? | Alexander’s reaffirmation of stronger state privacy protections supports reading Section 8 to require greater protection than Glover | Alexander concerns automobile-exception exigency/probable-cause issues and does not address reasonable-suspicion owner-as-driver inference | Court held Alexander is not on point and does not compel rejection of Glover under Section 8 |
Key Cases Cited
- Kansas v. Glover, 140 S.Ct. 1183 (U.S. 2020) (owner-as-driver inference can supply reasonable suspicion for a stop)
- Commonwealth v. Alexander, 243 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2020) (Pennsylvania Constitution may provide greater protection than Fourth Amendment in automobile-search context)
- Commonwealth v. Andersen, 753 A.2d 1289 (Pa. Super. 2000) (pre-Glover rule rejecting owner-as-driver inference absent additional facts)
- Commonwealth v. Matos, 672 A.2d 769 (Pa. 1996) (state constitution may offer broader protection than federal law; independent state analysis required)
- Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) (four-part test for determining whether Pennsylvania Constitution affords greater protection)