Com. v. Lopez-Torralba, E., Com. v. Lopez-Torralba, E. No. 2769 EDA 2016

On April 14, 2015, Detective Wood (plainclothes, wearing a vest labeled “Police”) approached a 2005 Acura suspected in a heroin trafficking investigation; appellant Erik Lopez-Torralba was the driver.
Detective Wood conducted a pat-down, asked for and received verbal consent to search the Acura on the street, then had appellant transported to the police station while the detective drove the Acura there.
At the station, the detective read and gave appellant a written consent-to-search form (including boilerplate that he could refuse and revoke consent); appellant signed and provided identifying information (address, confirmed the phone was his).
Officer(s) searched the car at the station (15 minutes) and later secured appellant’s phone and accompanied appellant to his residence, where a search produced a large quantity of heroin; a later search of the Acura yielded additional heroin.
Appellant moved to suppress evidence from the car, phone, and residence arguing his consent was not knowing/voluntary and that Miranda warnings were required before police asked for identifying information; the suppression court denied the motion, jury convicted, and appellant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Appellant)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether appellant’s consent to search car, home, phone was knowing, voluntary, intelligent	Consent was coerced by custody/direction, not truly voluntary	Consent was voluntary: police gave written/verbal notice of right to refuse and revoke; totality of circumstances supports voluntariness	Court affirmed: consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances
Whether Miranda warnings were required before asking for identifying info (address)	Miranda was required because appellant was in custody and questioned about matters that led to incriminating evidence	No Miranda needed: questions were non-custodial booking-type biographical questions and not custodial interrogation	Court affirmed: no Miranda violation; asking address to complete consent form did not trigger Miranda

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (consent searches analyzed under totality of the circumstances)
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1991) (scope of consent search governed by objective standard)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (U.S. 1990) (routine booking questions exception to Miranda)
Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884 (Pa. 2000) (voluntariness of consent tested by totality of circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Mack, 796 A.2d 967 (Pa. 2002) (importance of informing person they may refuse consent)
Commonwealth v. Kemp, 961 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2008) (factors to weigh when assessing voluntariness of consent)