277 A.3d 617
Pa. Super. Ct.2022Background
- On Oct. 2, 2020, Corporal Young followed a northbound Dodge Ram that initially had no lights illuminated and appeared to be speeding; he stopped it after its lights came on at an intersection.
- Driver Christopher Boozer smelled of alcohol and burned marijuana, failed field sobriety tests, and was ultimately detained; a pat-down yielded marijuana.
- The vehicle was impounded under department inventory policy (suspended license, impoundment), and an inventory search located two handguns and alcohol in the vehicle.
- Passenger Grant Skipper was told he was free to leave, began walking home, was pursued and detained by police, and two unidentified pills were recovered from him during a pat-down.
- Skipper moved to suppress the physical evidence; the trial court granted suppression. The Commonwealth appealed, arguing Skipper lacked a privacy interest in the glove compartment/console because he was a passenger and had been told he was free to leave.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the Commonwealth waived its challenge to Skipper’s expectation of privacy by failing to present evidence or contest that issue at the suppression hearing and in its pre-hearing brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Skipper) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Skipper had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the glove compartment/console of the vehicle as a passenger who left when told he was free to go | Skipper, as a non-driver passenger who left the scene, lacked a privacy interest in the glove compartment/console | Skipper had a constitutionally protected privacy interest in the searched areas and the search required probable cause/consent/warrant | Court did not reach the merits—Commonwealth waived this challenge by not contesting expectation of privacy at the suppression hearing or in its brief; suppression affirmed |
| Whether the Commonwealth could raise the expectation-of-privacy issue for the first time in a motion to reconsider | The Commonwealth sought to raise the issue in its motion to reconsider after the trial court granted suppression | Skipper argued late assertion amounted to waiver under Rule 581(H) and precedent requiring the Commonwealth to meet its initial burden | Court held the late challenge was waived; Commonwealth failed its initial burden of production at the suppression proceedings and conceded the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Enimpah v. Commonwealth, 106 A.3d 695 (Pa. 2014) (Commonwealth must initially present evidence to show defendant lacked a privacy interest before burden shifts to defendant)
- Arrington v. Commonwealth, 233 A.3d 910 (Pa. Super. 2020) (Commonwealth’s failure to challenge expectation of privacy waives the issue on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 69 A.3d 180 (Pa. 2013) (discusses Commonwealth’s right to appeal suppression order when appeal would substantially handicap prosecution)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 33 A.3d 122 (Pa. Super. 2011) (failure to challenge expectation of privacy at suppression proceedings can result in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 822 A.2d 716 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discusses timing of raising certain issues and motion-to-reconsider practice; distinguished by court here)