270 A.3d 571
Pa. Super. Ct.2022Background
- On May 5, 2017 police found Ann Lutz in a running vehicle parked in an area known for drug activity; she displayed signs of impairment (odor of alcohol, slurred speech, poor coordination) and failed field coordination tests.
- Backup officers attempted a preliminary breath test (PBT) but could not obtain reliable readings; Lutz was informed she would be arrested for DUI if she could not provide a PBT result.
- While Lutz was detained by two officers and the vehicle door remained open with keys inside, Sergeant Nunemacher looked into the car, observed a metal pipe on the driver’s seat that smelled of burnt marijuana, and seized it.
- Nunemacher then arrested Lutz, Mirandized her, asked about contraband, and, without a warrant, searched the vehicle, recovering marijuana in an eyeglass case under the driver’s seat and a pill and straw near the center console.
- Lutz moved to suppress; the trial court denied suppression, convicted her of possession offenses (and acquitted on DUI), and sentenced her. On appeal, the Superior Court reviewed whether the plain view and search-incident-to-arrest exceptions justified the warrantless seizures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of seizure of the metal pipe under the plain view doctrine | Pipe was in plain view from the open door; officer lawfully approached and had probable cause to seize based on odor, appearance, training | Seizure required a warrant; plain view did not make the pipe per se incriminating | Pipe seizure upheld: officer lawfully viewed it, probable cause existed under totality of circumstances, and exigency (running car/open door) justified entry to secure ignition so seizure was lawful |
| Validity of warrantless search of vehicle as search incident to arrest (marijuana in eyeglass case) | Search was incident to Lutz’s arrest for DUI and thus lawful without a warrant | Lutz was handcuffed and detained away from the vehicle; she had no access or ability to destroy evidence, so SITA did not apply | Search incident to arrest did not apply: because Lutz was secured and not within immediate control of the vehicle, the warrantless search of the interior (and marijuana found under seat) violated the Fourth Amendment/PA Const. art. I, § 8; that evidence must be suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Alexander, 243 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2020) (under Pennsylvania Constitution warrantless automobile searches require probable cause plus exigent circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Luczki, 212 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. 2019) (sets elements for plain view seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 982 A.2d 90 (Pa. Super. 2009) (probable cause is a practical, totality-based determination supporting plain-view seizures)
- Commonwealth v. Simonson, 148 A.3d 792 (Pa. Super. 2016) (search incident to arrest limited to the person and the area within immediate control)
- Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 188 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2018) (police may search an arrestee’s person as a matter of course incident to a lawful arrest)
- Commonwealth v. Ingram, 814 A.2d 264 (Pa. Super. 2002) (in lawful arrests police may fully search the person incident to arrest)