Com. v. Strange, J.
2770 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 11, 2017Background
- On November 28, 2015, Philadelphia police observed an apparent hand-to-hand exchange: William Wible handed money to Jason Strange and received small objects. Officers suspected a narcotics transaction and stopped to approach.
- As officers exited their marked patrol car and approached, Wible dropped items and Strange dropped a sandwich bag and pill bottle; an officer then yelled “Don’t move” and both men were arrested.
- Recovered items included multiple blue Xanax pills and methamphetamine; Strange also had $374 on his person.
- Strange moved to suppress the drugs, arguing the officers had unlawfully seized him (and thus coerced the abandonment) before he discarded the contraband, so the evidence should be excluded under the forced-abandonment doctrine.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion; after a bench trial Strange was convicted of possession with intent to deliver and possession, and sentenced. Strange appealed solely on the suppression issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police seized Strange before he discarded drugs, making abandonment involuntary | Strange: Officers’ marked car stopped within ~10 feet and officers immediately approached — this showed intent to detain and thus a seizure occurred without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, requiring suppression under Matos forced-abandonment rule | Commonwealth: Officers had merely approached (a "mere encounter") and had not used force, orders, or show of authority before Strange discarded items; therefore abandonment was voluntary and evidence admissible | Court: At time of discarding there was at most a mere encounter (no seizure). Abandonment was voluntary; suppression denied and conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Matos, 672 A.2d 769 (Pa. 1996) (forced-abandonment rule: contraband discarded in response to unlawful seizure must be suppressed)
- Commonwealth v. Pizarro, 723 A.2d 675 (Pa. Super. 1998) (approach by patrol car that induces flight/abandonment does not necessarily constitute coercive seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Byrd, 987 A.2d 786 (Pa. Super. 2009) (abandonment in response to approaching police caravan was voluntary; evidence admissible)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 73 A.3d 609 (Pa. Super. 2013) (describes three encounter levels: mere encounter, investigative detention, custodial arrest)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 811 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2002) (police may lawfully approach and ask questions on the street without implicating the Fourth Amendment)