Com. v. McVeigh, D.
Com. v. McVeigh, D. No. 3367 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 14, 2017Background
- Officer Rahill stopped Daniel McVeigh after observing a traffic violation in a high‑crime area and requested he exit the vehicle.
- When Rahill approached, he observed McVeigh visibly nervous and saw him "stuff" something into his left pocket.
- Rahill performed an open‑palm safety frisk of McVeigh’s outer clothing and felt a "bumpy package" in the left front pocket.
- Based on his training and experience (six years, 50+ narcotics arrests), Rahill testified he immediately recognized the tactile impression as bundled Ziploc packets of heroin.
- Rahill seized fifteen small Ziploc packets of heroin; McVeigh was charged with possession, moved to suppress, was denied relief, submitted to a stipulated trial, was convicted, and sentenced to nine months’ reporting probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of frisk under Terry (reasonable suspicion to believe suspect armed/dangerous) | Officer: frisk justified by traffic stop in high‑crime area plus nervous, evasive conduct | McVeigh: frisk unlawful; officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe he was armed/dangerous | Court: frisk lawful—totality (high‑crime area, extreme nervousness, furtive movement) gave reasonable suspicion |
| Application of "plain feel"—was seizure of nonthreatening contraband valid? | Officer: felt a bundled, bumpy package; immediately recognized as narcotics packaging by touch | McVeigh: incriminating nature not immediately apparent; officer exceeded Terry by seizing without probable cause | Court: seizure upheld—officer lawfully positioned, tactile impression made incriminating nature immediately apparent without manipulation |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes stop‑and‑frisk reasonable‑suspicion standard)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (plain‑feel doctrine: contraband may be seized only if incriminating nature is immediately apparent)
- Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 744 A.2d 1261 (Pa.) (explains Pennsylvania application of plain‑feel immediate‑apparency requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524 (Pa. Super.) (standard of review for suppression denials)
- In re D.M., 781 A.2d 1161 (Pa.) (nervous, evasive behavior plus high‑crime area are pertinent to reasonable suspicion)