Com. v. Pough, J.
Com. v. Pough, J. No. 1191 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Police officer stopped a vehicle for traffic violations; driver Tre Piper and rear-seat passenger Jernell Pough (appellant) were present.
- Officer suspected impairment, administered a portable breath test to Piper which read zero; officer returned Piper’s ID and issued a warning.
- While the officer’s patrol-car door remained open, he asked one more question; Piper disclosed a scale and consented to a vehicle search.
- Search uncovered a digital scale under the front seat, loose marijuana and a roach in common areas; after searching incident to arrest, police found a marijuana blunt in Pough’s shoe.
- Pough moved to suppress evidence as the fruit of an unlawful second detention and coerced consent; the trial court denied suppression, Pough stipulated to a bench trial and was convicted of possession of small amount of marijuana and paraphernalia, and sentenced to probation.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant’s Argument (Pough) | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officer’s post-PBT re‑questioning constituted an unlawful investigative detention that tainted Piper’s consent to search | The officer’s re-engagement after the PBT had no reasonable suspicion and functioned as a second detention, so Piper’s consent was involuntary and fruit of poisonous tree | Even if re‑questioning occurred, Pough (a backseat passenger) lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in common areas; Piper’s consent valid as to vehicle; evidence admissible | Court affirmed denial of suppression: Pough lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the areas searched, so he cannot suppress the vehicle evidence or fruits thereof |
Key Cases Cited
- Enimpah v. Commonwealth, 106 A.3d 695 (Pa.) (defendant charged with possessory offense has automatic standing but must show a personal privacy interest to prevail on suppression)
- Hawkins v. Commonwealth, 718 A.2d 265 (Pa.) (co-occupant cannot vicariously assert another occupant’s privacy rights)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 941 A.2d 14 (Pa. Super.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 874 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super.) (appellate review limited to record supporting suppression court findings)
- Viall v. Commonwealth, 890 A.2d 419 (Pa. Super.) (backseat passenger lacks reasonable expectation of privacy in common vehicle areas)
- Laboy v. Commonwealth, 936 A.2d 1058 (Pa.) (court may reach merits despite vagueness in Rule 1925(b) where trial court addressed claim)