Com. v. Knippschild, R.
1344 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- In 2012 Robert Knippschild pled guilty to possession of child pornography and use of a communication facility; he received 9–23 months’ incarceration and seven years’ probation with special conditions banning pornography and authorizing searches.
- After an earlier 2014 probation revocation and resentencing, his supervision prohibited internet access and possession of internet-capable devices without approval.
- On September 12, 2016, probation officer John Firestone conducted a home compliance check after prior polygraph admissions (Jan. 2016) that Knippschild still masturbated to thoughts of minors and had viewed erotic material, and after a failed June 2016 polygraph question about social media use.
- During the visit Firestone observed unusual nervous behavior; while the defendant answered a phone, Firestone lifted a couch cushion and found an internet-enabled tablet containing pornography; the defendant admitted ownership and provided the passcode.
- Knippschild moved to suppress the tablet evidence, arguing the search lacked reasonable suspicion; the trial court denied suppression, revoked probation after a Gagnon II hearing, and resentenced him; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless search of the residence (couch) was supported by reasonable suspicion under supervisory-search law | Commonwealth: Firestone had reasonable suspicion based on defendant’s prior admissions on polygraph, prior violations, failed polygraph on internet use, defendant’s nervous demeanor, agent’s experience, and supervisory need to verify compliance | Knippschild: Officer lacked reasonable suspicion to search the home/couch, so the tablet and its contents should be suppressed | Court: Denied suppression — totality of circumstances (enumerated §9912 factors and observed behavior) provided reasonable suspicion to search and seize the tablet |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoppert v. Commonwealth, 39 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review on suppression denial and reliance on Commonwealth evidence)
- El v. Commonwealth, 933 A.2d 657 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Fourth Amendment and Article I, §8 protections against unreasonable searches)
- McCree v. Commonwealth, 924 A.2d 621 (Pa. 2007) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable; exceptions)
- Chambers v. Commonwealth, 55 A.3d 1208 (Pa. Super. 2012) (§9912 authorizes supervisory searches for reasonable suspicion)
- Moore v. Commonwealth, 805 A.2d 616 (Pa. Super. 2002) (definition and totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 85 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. 2014) (probation/parole supervisory relationship and scope of searches)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (due process procedures in parole/probation revocation hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Arter, 151 A.3d 149 (Pa. 2016) (exclusionary rule applies to revocation proceedings; discussed but found inapplicable here)
- Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (U.S. 2017) (limits on statutes that broadly restrict sex offenders’ internet access; noted but not controlling here)