Com. v. Owens, L.
575 WDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Jan 12, 2017Background
- Trooper Knott stopped a Chevrolet Impala on I-79 for illegal window tinting and an object hanging from beneath the car; Appellant (Owens) was driving with his 6-year-old son and was the sole adult in the vehicle.
- Trooper Knott could not initially see into the car due to tinting; registration showed the car belonged to Owens' nephew from Farrell, a locality Trooper Knott associated with drug distribution.
- After issuing a written warning, Knott re-engaged Owens, asked for consent to search, detected a strong artificial air-freshener odor, observed nervous behavior, and learned of prior drug-related arrests/convictions for Owens and the registered owner.
- Owens refused consent; police detained the vehicle while they summoned a drug-detection canine. Owens and his child left on foot before the canine arrived. The dog later alerted on the car; a warrant search recovered ~3 pounds of marijuana in the trunk.
- Owens was charged with possession and possession with intent to deliver, moved to suppress the evidence, was denied, tried pro se with standby counsel, convicted by jury, and sentenced to 12–24 months plus probation. He appealed pro se, raising suppression, confrontation, and sufficiency claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Owens) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether post-warning re-engagement and canine detention were a lawful investigative detention supported by reasonable suspicion | Re-engagement was supported by the totality of circumstances (tinted windows, dangling object, borrowed car, strong air freshener odor, nervousness, provenance from a known source city, officers' training/experience) permitting reasonable suspicion to detain for a K-9 sniff | Trooper lacked independent reasonable suspicion after the traffic stop was concluded; subsequent detention was unlawful and evidence should be suppressed | Court held the second interaction was an investigative detention but reasonable suspicion existed under the totality-of-the-circumstances, so suppression denial affirmed |
| 2) Whether the canine sniff/search violated the Fourth Amendment / state constitution | Canine exterior sniff following a lawful investigative detention is permissible where detention is supported by reasonable suspicion; dog alerted and a warrant search followed | Canine search was unlawful because detention lacked reasonable suspicion and was prolongation of a traffic stop | Held lawful: detention and subsequent exterior canine sniff were supported by reasonable suspicion; evidence admissible |
| 3) Whether Owens' Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were violated by not being allowed to call the canine handler | Commonwealth did not call the handler or introduce the handler's out-of-court statements as evidence | Owens sought to question the handler to attack the dog's reliability; argued denial impeded confrontation | Held no violation: the handler was not a witness called against Owens and the Commonwealth did not introduce handler testimony, so Confrontation Clause inapplicable |
| 4) Whether evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession and PWID | Evidence (Owens as sole adult driver, control of vehicle, nervous conduct, dog alert, abandonment of vehicle, 3 lbs of marijuana in trunk) supported constructive possession and intent to deliver | Owens argued no direct evidence he knew of or controlled the drugs; trunk belonged to nephew so possession not established beyond conjecture | Held sufficient: circumstantial evidence allowed jury to infer knowledge and intent to deliver (quantity and circumstances) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rogers, 849 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 2004) (totality-of-circumstances approach to post-stop detentions)
- Commonwealth v. Kemp, 961 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2008) (factors supporting reasonable suspicion after traffic stop)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 735 A.2d 673 (Pa. 1999) (reasonable suspicion standard and officer inferences)
- Commonwealth v. Wantz, 84 A.3d 324 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Confrontation Clause principles)
- Commonwealth v. Macolino, 469 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1983) (constructive possession definition)
- Commonwealth v. Toritto, 67 A.3d 29 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sufficiency standard review)