Com. v. Poteat, A.
Com. v. Poteat, A. No. 3305 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 23, 2017Background
- Trooper stopped Antoine Poteat on I-78 for following a tractor-trailer too closely; he issued a warning and returned Poteat’s documents.
- Upon initial contact the trooper detected the odor of fresh marijuana, observed masking agents (air fresheners, dryer sheets, cologne), saw two cell phones (one prepaid), and noted Poteat’s nervousness and a NYC parking ticket in the car.
- The vehicle was a rental and Poteat could not immediately produce the rental agreement; the trooper called Enterprise to verify the rental.
- After the trooper told Poteat he was free to leave, the trooper immediately re-engaged him in conversation and asked further questions; Poteat remained outside the vehicle and refused consent to search.
- A K-9 unit performed an exterior sniff and gave a positive alert; police obtained a search warrant and found over 1,000 grams of cocaine and 90 grams of marijuana.
- Poteat moved to suppress the evidence as fruit of an unlawful seizure after the stop; the trial court denied suppression, convicted Poteat after a bench trial, and sentenced him to 5–10 years; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Poteat's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was unlawfully extended after trooper said Poteat was free to leave | Trooper re-engaged Poteat after saying he was free to go, converting the encounter into an unlawful seizure requiring suppression | Continued detention was an investigative detention supported by reasonable suspicion based on odor, masking agents, nervousness, rental status, two phones, NYC ticket, and Enterprise verification | Denied suppression: re-contact was a continued investigative detention, not a mere encounter; objective circumstances made a reasonable person not feel free to leave |
| Whether the canine sniff and subsequent search were supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause | Canine sniff and resulting warrantless investigative measures lacked independent reasonable suspicion and so tainted the warrant and search | Canine sniff was supported by reasonable suspicion; positive alert ripened to probable cause supporting the warrant | Canine alerted positively; that plus the totality of facts provided probable cause for the search warrant; evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Reppert, 814 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Super. 2002) (when a traffic stop has concluded versus a subsequent encounter)
- Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884 (Pa. 2000) (factors to determine if post-stop questioning is a seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Rogers, 849 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 2004) (reasonable suspicion required before a canine sniff of a vehicle exterior)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 935 A.2d 1275 (Pa. 2007) (positive canine alert converts reasonable suspicion into probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Freeman, 757 A.2d 903 (Pa. 2000) (continued detention beyond a traffic stop requires independent reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Kemp, 961 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2008) (masking agents, odor, rental/third-party ownership, nervousness and travel from source city can support reasonable suspicion)