Com. v. Maxon, A.
1638 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 2, 2018Background
- Police responded to a report of a male and female passed out in a parked vehicle; Corporal Waite found Appellant (driver) with a marijuana blunt, which Appellant discarded and admitted contained marijuana.
- Officer removed both occupants, patted them down (no weapons/contraband found), and searched the vehicle; the back seat was cluttered with belongings.
- On the driver’s seat headrest Waite found a closed black hygiene bag; inside he discovered empty baggies, baggies containing suspected heroin and cocaine, and a digital scale.
- Appellant admitted the contents of the hygiene bag were his; field tests were positive and lab testing confirmed 3.09 g heroin and 4.66 g cocaine.
- Appellant was charged with two counts each of possession with intent to deliver (PWID), possession, and possession of drug paraphernalia; the trial court denied his motion to suppress, a jury convicted him, and he was sentenced to 27–54 months’ imprisonment plus probation.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless search of the closed hygiene bag violated the Fourth Amendment / Pa. Const. art. I, § 8 | Waite lacked probable cause to search the closed bag; suppression required | Waite had probable cause to search the vehicle for contraband (marijuana admission, blunt observed) and may search containers within the car without individualized probable cause | Denied: Probable cause to search the car extended to containers; search lawful |
| Sufficiency of evidence for PWID convictions | Lab purity concerns mean Commonwealth didn’t prove seized substances were heroin and cocaine or intended for delivery | Expert testified amounts, packaging, scale, baggies, and experience supported that substances were heroin/cocaine and consistent with intent to deliver | Denied: Evidence sufficient to prove possession and intent to deliver |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence | (Listed but not briefed) | (Not argued) | Waived for failing to develop argument in brief |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) (Pennsylvania adopts a uniform federal-style standard for warrantless automobile searches)
- In re I.M.S., 124 A.3d 311 (Pa. Super. 2015) (applying Wyoming v. Houghton to allow container searches in vehicles when probable cause to search the car exists)
- Commonwealth v. Runyan, 160 A.3d 831 (Pa. Super. 2017) (reaffirming that probable cause to search a vehicle permits searching containers where contraband could be concealed)
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (U.S. 1999) (officers may search containers belonging to passengers when they have probable cause to search the vehicle)
- Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 46 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures)
- Commonwealth v. Aguado, 760 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2000) (elements of possession with intent to deliver)
- Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (factors to infer intent to deliver beyond quantity)