Com. v. Martin, A., 253 A.3d 1225

Ross Township officers responded to a Holiday Inn after a report of marijuana odor; Officer Jason Moss, in uniform, knocked and a woman opened the hotel room door.
As Moss looked into the room he observed Appellant Aaron Martin reaching over a chair; Moss testified at various times that he was outside the doorway, in the threshold, and on cross-examination that half his body had crossed the threshold when he made that observation.
Moss drew his weapon, ordered Martin to put his hands on his head, observed the outline of a gun in Martin’s pocket, performed a pat-down, and recovered the firearm.
Martin was charged with carrying a firearm without a license and other counts; he moved to suppress the gun, which the trial court denied; he was convicted after a stipulated non-jury trial and sentenced.
The Superior Court reviewed the suppression ruling, found the record supports that Moss had partially crossed the threshold (an entry) before observing Martin’s movements, held that entry was warrantless and unconstitutional, concluded the subsequent observations and seizure were fruits of the poisonous tree, reversed the conviction, and vacated sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Officer Moss entered the hotel room without a warrant/consent or exigency when he observed Martin reach over the chair	Moss had half his body across the threshold when he observed Martin, so the officer effected a warrantless entry into a constitutionally protected space	The officer merely observed from the doorway/threshold (a lawful vantage point) and did not enter before making the observations	Court held the record supports that Moss had at least half his body across the threshold (an entry); entry was unconstitutional; observations and firearm should have been suppressed
Whether police had reasonable suspicion or exigent circumstances to detain/search regardless of vantage point	Martin argued the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain/search him for a firearm	Commonwealth argued that, even if observed lawfully, the officer had reasonable suspicion/fear for safety to act	Court declined to reach this claim after finding the entry unconstitutional and suppressing the evidence as fruit of the poisonous tree

Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 46 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression appeals)
Commonwealth v. Dean, 940 A.2d 514 (Pa. Super. 2008) (hotel rooms receive Fourth Amendment protection)
Commonwealth v. McCree, 924 A.2d 621 (Pa. 2007) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable; exceptions limited)
Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discussing plain-view and exigent-circumstances exceptions)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (evidence in plain view must be observed from a lawful vantage point)
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (knocking and requesting entry without a warrant is not per se unlawful)
Commonwealth v. Demshock, 854 A.2d 553 (Pa. Super. 2004) (exigency cannot be created by police misconduct)
Commonwealth v. McBride, 570 A.2d 539 (Pa. Super. 1990) (officers who enter a home without consent or a warrant violate the Fourth Amendment)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the home)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (evidence deriving directly from unlawful official action is fruit of the poisonous tree)