303 A.3d 155
Pa. Super. Ct.2023Background:
- Trooper Rowe stopped Terrance Sloan at ~3:06 a.m. for speeding (78 mph in a 45 mph zone); Sloan initially stopped unsafely against a median then moved to a side road.
- As Rowe approached, he smelled burnt marijuana emanating from Sloan’s vehicle; Rowe observed bloodshot/glossy eyes and slurred speech.
- Sloan handed over license/registration, gestured to a metal tin on the passenger seat, opened it to reveal a marijuana blunt, and reported he had smoked ~2 hours earlier and had a medical-marijuana card.
- Rowe conducted field sobriety/ocular tests (lack of convergence, Romberg, tongue observation) and concluded Sloan was under the influence of a controlled substance; Rowe arrested Sloan after tests and read implied-consent warnings; Sloan refused chemical testing.
- Rowe seized the tin (charged as paraphernalia); suppression motion was denied; bench trial convicted Sloan of DUI—impaired ability (first offense), possession, paraphernalia, speeding, and careless driving; sentence: 72 hours–6 months imprisonment plus probation.
- Sloan appealed, arguing (1) the traffic stop was unlawfully extended / new investigative detention lacked reasonable suspicion and (2) statements to Rowe were obtained in custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sloan) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was unlawfully extended or a new investigative detention occurred without reasonable suspicion | The trooper unlawfully prolonged the speeding stop and the odor of marijuana alone cannot justify further detention or sobriety tests | The trooper developed reasonable suspicion before the initial stop’s purpose was complete based on unsafe stopping, odor of burnt marijuana, red/glossy eyes, slurred speech, admission of recent use, and FST failures | Court held no error: totality of circumstances gave reasonable suspicion to expand the inquiry and conduct sobriety testing |
| Whether statements (location/admission re: marijuana) should have been suppressed for lack of Miranda warnings | Asking "where the marijuana was" occurred during custodial interrogation; Miranda warnings were required prior to eliciting incriminating statements | The exchange occurred during an ordinary, non-custodial traffic stop; Sloan was not restrained, transported, or otherwise in custody when he made statements | Court held no Miranda violation: questioning was non-custodial and statements admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (traffic-stop mission limits duration; unrelated inquiries permissible only if they do not prolong the stop)
- Commonwealth v. Hicks, 208 A.3d 916 (Pa. 2019) (smell of marijuana alone post‑MMA is insufficient by itself to establish reasonable suspicion of criminal activity)
- Commonwealth v. Barr, 266 A.3d 25 (Pa. 2021) (odor of marijuana may be considered as one factor among others in totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Chase, 960 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2008) (distinguishes reasonable suspicion vs. probable cause standards for investigative detentions)
- Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 287 A.3d 1 (Pa.Super. 2022) (post-MMA: burnt marijuana smell plus other facts can support reasonable suspicion, especially where smoking is observed)
- Commonwealth v. Mannion, 725 A.2d 196 (Pa.Super. 1999) (ordinary traffic stop is investigatory, not custodial; custodial analysis depends on totality of coercive conditions)