Com. v. McMahon, J., 280 A.3d 1069

On May 21, 2020, Pittsburgh police stopped Jarod McMahon (known to lack a valid license). Officers smelled marijuana and observed two burnt marijuana cigarettes in the center cupholder in plain view.
McMahon was removed, arrested, and searched; officers recovered 1½ pills (later identified as oxycodone) on his person.
Officers subsequently searched the vehicle and found three bags of marijuana in the center console; the trial court later suppressed those console bags.
McMahon moved to suppress the cupholder cigarettes, the console bags, and the pills; the court denied suppression as to the cigarettes and pills but suppressed the console bags.
After a stipulated non-jury trial, McMahon was convicted of possession of a controlled substance (oxy) and possession of marijuana (the cigarettes); he received six months’ probation for the controlled substance offense and appealed the denial of suppression for the cigarettes.
On appeal, McMahon argued the plain-view seizure of the cigarettes was unlawful because, under Commonwealth v. Alexander, officers needed exigent circumstances or a lawful right of access to seize items inside a vehicle without a warrant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of suppression of marijuana cigarettes seized from cupholder was erroneous under the plain-view doctrine	Commonwealth: seizure lawful under plain-view — officers were at a lawful vantage, incriminating nature was immediately apparent, and they had a lawful right of access to seize without a warrant (no opportunity to obtain one).	McMahon: Alexander requires exigent circumstances for warrantless vehicle searches/seizures; officers had no lawful right of access and no additional exigency to seize items inside the car.	Court affirmed: plain-view seizure lawful. Alexander did not alter plain-view; officers had lawful vantage, the contraband’s incriminating nature was immediately apparent, and they had lawful access to seize given arrest and lack of opportunity to obtain a warrant.

Commonwealth v. Alexander, 243 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2020) (clarifies automobile-exception limits under Pennsylvania Constitution and discusses exigency requirement for warrantless vehicle searches)
Commonwealth v. McCree, 924 A.2d 621 (Pa. 2007) (articulates three-prong plain-view test: lawful vantage, immediately apparent incriminating nature, lawful right of access)
Commonwealth v. Miller, 56 A.3d 424 (Pa. Super. 2012) (holds warrantless seizure of contraband in vehicle may be lawful under plain-view where incriminating character is obvious and officers lacked opportunity to obtain a warrant)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc) (supports plain-view seizure where officers had no advance notice or opportunity to secure a warrant)
Commonwealth v. Lutz, 270 A.3d 571 (Pa. Super. 2022) (applies plain-view doctrine to items observed in vehicle and distinguishes Alexander)
Commonwealth v. Heidelberg, 267 A.3d 492 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en banc) (discusses warrant requirement and enumerates exceptions under state constitution)
Commonwealth v. Turner, 982 A.2d 90 (Pa. Super. 2009) (recognizes that incriminating objects plainly visible inside a vehicle may be seized without a warrant)