Com. v. Richard, D.
238 A.3d 522
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- At ~2:10 a.m. on Nov. 5, 2017, Officer Kanan observed a blue Ford; after running the plate the vehicle returned as unregistered and he initiated a stop.
- Appellee (driver) exited the vehicle and appeared nervous, could not state where he was going, and pointed to different houses.
- Officer Kanan smelled marijuana on Appellee outside the car; he asked Appellee to retrieve vehicle paperwork and, when the door opened, detected a stronger marijuana odor coming from inside the vehicle.
- Appellee admitted he had marijuana; officers recovered a small bag of marijuana from his jacket and then searched the vehicle, finding a .40 cal handgun with an obliterated serial number and additional suspected marijuana.
- Trial court suppressed the evidence seized from the vehicle (but denied suppression as to the on-person marijuana and Appellee’s statement); Commonwealth appealed.
- Superior Court reversed: it held the stop was lawful (vehicle unregistered) and that the totality of circumstances (nervousness, on-person marijuana, admission, stronger in-car odor) supplied probable cause to search the vehicle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Richard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of the traffic stop | Stop lawful: officer observed signal violation and plate check showed vehicle unregistered | Stop unlawful (trial ct. emphasized turn-signal issue) | Stop lawful — officer did not activate lights until plate showed no registration, giving statutory basis to stop |
| Probable cause for warrantless vehicle search | Odor of marijuana (stronger inside), driver’s nervousness, admission of possessing marijuana, and small on-person quantity together gave probable cause to search | Once marijuana on person was recovered, officers should have ceased; no warrant and no further exigency justified car search | Probable cause existed under totality of circumstances; warrantless search of vehicle was lawful, so suppression of in-car gun and drugs was error |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) (warrantless motor-vehicle search requires probable cause; inherent mobility does not add exigency beyond that standard)
- Commonwealth v. Stoner, 344 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 1975) (strong odor and other indicia of marijuana can establish probable cause to search vehicle)
- Commonwealth v. Lechner, 685 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Super. 1996) (probable cause evaluated under totality-of-the-circumstances standard)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 56 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review on suppression appeals — factual findings binding if supported)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 188 A.3d 454 (Pa. Super. 2018) (warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable absent recognized exception)
- Commonwealth v. Stainbrook, 471 A.2d 1223 (Pa. Super. 1984) (odor of marijuana plus furtive behavior can justify vehicle search)