248 A.3d 510
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background:
- Appellant Edward Lee Parker, III was charged with multiple offenses including person not to possess a firearm, carrying a firearm without a license, and a windshield‑obstruction (window tint) violation; he was convicted after a non‑jury trial and sentenced.
- On November 8, 2015 at ~4:00 a.m., Officer Blake Maloney surveilled a known gun‑carrying drug dealer's house; Parker and a passenger (Tyrone Surratt) left and entered a Mercedes.
- Officer Maloney observed heavy tint on the vehicle’s side windows and stopped the car to investigate a suspected §4524(e) violation in a high‑crime area.
- As Maloney approached, Parker made furtive reaching motions toward the rear passenger floorboard; Surratt scooped and tossed a substance (believed to be marijuana) out the passenger window.
- Officers detained and patted down both occupants, then searched the vehicle; they recovered a handgun, suspected crack cocaine, marijuana, scales and baggies from the rear floor area where Parker had been reaching. The car was impounded and inventoried.
- Parker’s suppression motion was denied; he appealed arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion and the warrantless search was not justified by any exception.
Issues:
| Issue | Parker's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was the traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion of a windshield‑obstruction (tint) violation? | Officer could see into the car, had no tint‑measurement device and made no investigation; stop was pretextual and lacked reasonable suspicion. | Officer observed heavy tint that prevented viewing the interior and had reasonable suspicion to stop and ask for an exemption/certificate; stop was in good faith. | Stop was lawful: court held officer’s observation of heavy tint supplied reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. |
| 2) Was the warrantless search of the vehicle unlawful (no valid exception)? | No warrant and no exception; recovered items (gun, drugs) are fruit of an illegal search and must be suppressed. | Protective frisk/vehicle sweep justified by furtive movements, passenger discarding suspected contraband, time/location (Terry/Morris); alternatively, items would have been inevitably discovered during a lawful tow/inventory. | Search upheld: protective frisk and vehicle sweep were reasonable under Terry/Morris; alternatively, inevitable discovery via lawful impound/inventory would have produced the same evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (stop‑and‑frisk framework; officer may pat down if danger reasonably suspected)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (U.S. 1983) (vehicle protective sweep principles)
- Commonwealth v. Simmons, 17 A.3d 399 (Pa. Super. 2011) (furtive movements during lawful stop can justify a protective frisk)
- Commonwealth v. Morris, 644 A.2d 721 (Pa. 1994) (search of passenger compartment allowed if officer reasonably believes suspect dangerous and may access weapons)
- Commonwealth v. Bailey, 986 A.2d 860 (Pa. Super. 2009) (inevitable discovery doctrine applied to routine inventory searches following impound)
- Commonwealth v. Muhammed, 992 A.2d 897 (Pa. Super. 2010) (totality of the circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (Pa. 2013) (scope of appellate review of suppression limited to suppression‑hearing record)