Com. v. Rivera, R.
Com. v. Rivera, R. No. 1414 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Jul 31, 2017Background
- Police responded to a neighbor complaint of illegal drug use at Roberto Rivera’s apartment; two officers knocked and Rivera invited them in and initially consented to a search.
- Officer Zinda found a marijuana grinder in plain view; Rivera produced a tin of marijuana and asked officers to stop the search, after which the search paused.
- Detective Minnick told Rivera the facts gave probable cause for a warrant; Rivera called a longtime friend, Sgt. Brett Hopkins, who told him to cooperate with police.
- Rivera then signed a written consent-to-search form after Detective Minnick explained it and offered to answer questions; shortly after signing he complained of illness and an ambulance was summoned.
- While Rivera waited on the front steps and was later taken by ambulance, officers resumed and continued the apartment search and discovered morphine pills.
- Trial court initially suppressed the pills (finding consent invalid because of Rivera’s call to Hopkins), later reconsidered and denied suppression; Rivera was convicted and appealed, raising only the suppression/inevitable-discovery issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether search was constitutional / consent voluntary | Commonwealth: Rivera voluntarily consented; even if not, pills admissible via inevitable discovery | Rivera: call to Hopkins and his removal by ambulance vitiated consent, making subsequent seizure unlawful | Court held consent was voluntary; search constitutional; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 46 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Kemp, 961 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2008) (factors for voluntariness of consent)
- Commonwealth v. Perel, 107 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2014) (inevitable discovery doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Witman, 750 A.2d 327 (Pa. Super. 2000) (valid consent allows officers to remain/continue investigation)
- Commonwealth v. Cleckley, 738 A.2d 427 (Pa. 1999) (knowledge of right to refuse is a factor but not dispositive)