Com. v. Lehnerd, T.
273 A.3d 586
Pa. Super. Ct.2022Background:
- March 7, 2019: single-vehicle rollover; troopers found overturned pickup, empty beer cans in the truck, and witnesses who smelled alcohol and saw the driver ask to use a phone.
- Troopers identified Troy Lehnerd as the registered owner and learned his parents had driven him home after the crash.
- Troopers went to Lehnerd's house at ~9:00 p.m.; no one answered when they knocked. Lehnerd's mother arrived, opened the door, and let the troopers into the house.
- Inside, troopers escorted Lehnerd out, conducted field sobriety tests and a breath test (.163 BAC); results were admitted at trial.
- Lehnerd moved to suppress evidence on the ground the warrantless entry and seizure were unlawful; the trial court denied the motion, and Lehnerd was convicted at a bench trial of two DUI counts and two summary vehicle offenses.
- Superior Court: held mother lacked actual or apparent authority to consent to entry (she did not live at the house, was not present when police arrived, and had no key); vacated DUI convictions and remanded for a new trial, but left summary convictions intact.
Issues:
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Lehnerd's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entry into Lehnerd's home and subsequent seizure were lawful | Mother consented to entry and had apparent authority to permit entry | Mother lacked actual or apparent authority (didn't live there, not present, no key); entry was a warrantless, unconstitutional seizure | Entry unlawful: mother lacked authority; exclusion required for evidence obtained from the entry; DUI convictions vacated; remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited:
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless home entry to arrest is presumptively unreasonable)
- Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292 (2014) (occupant consent to entry can justify warrantless entry)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (apparent authority: consent valid if officers reasonably believe consenting party has authority)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 836 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2003) (apparent authority absent where police had no reason to believe nonresident consenting persons lived or stayed at dwelling)
- Commonwealth v. Basking, 970 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2009) (parent of adult who lived separately lacked authority to consent to search of son's separate space)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 743 A.2d 946 (Pa. Super. 1999) (warrantless entry unlawful where officers knew consenting party was not occupant)
- Commonwealth v. Strader, 931 A.2d 630 (Pa. 2007) (apparent authority where consenting person was inside and identified as staying at residence)
- Commonwealth v. Rosario, 248 A.3d 599 (Pa. Super. 2021) (apparent authority where consenting party identified as house-sitting and had access)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 209 A.3d 912 (Pa. 2019) (illegally obtained evidence must be excluded)
- Commonwealth v. Valdivia, 195 A.3d 855 (Pa. 2018) (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)