Com. v. Swirsding
Com. v. Swirsding No. 2375 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 30, 2017Background
- At ~4:00 a.m., police responded to a 911 report of a possible domestic disturbance and a suspect driving over objects; officer located appellant’s parked green Range Rover outside a 7‑11.
- Appellant exited the store and identified the vehicle as his; officer smelled alcohol, observed erratic mood shifts, and appellant admitted drinking.
- Officer determined appellant was a danger/annoyance and placed him under arrest for public drunkenness and into the patrol car.
- Store personnel told the officer the vehicle could not remain in the parking lot, so the vehicle was towed pursuant to department impoundment policy.
- During the inventory search incident to impound, officer smelled fresh marijuana and observed a glass smoking bowl and a vacuum‑sealed bag in the center console; contraband was seized.
- Following a bench trial (after denial of a suppression motion), appellant was convicted of public drunkenness, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for public drunkenness | Swirsding: No objective testing; he spoke calmly and did not behave consistently with public intoxication | Officer observed odor of alcohol, erratic mood swings, admission of drinking, and risk of continued driving | Conviction affirmed — evidence sufficient to show intoxication posing danger/annoyance |
| Legality of towing/impound (business invitee status) | Swirsding: As a business invitee, he could leave car in parking lot; store agent lacked authority to order removal; no signage limiting parking | Officer: store representative told officer vehicle could not remain; 75 Pa.C.S. §3353 supports removal on private property; appellant waived detailed challenge | Claim waived for inadequate briefing; trial court found appellant lost invitee status upon arrest and towing lawful |
| Validity of inventory search (warrantless search of safely parked car) | Swirsding: Inventory was pretextual and violates Lagenella because car was immobilized but parked safely | Commonwealth: Inventory exception applies when vehicle lawfully impounded under community caretaking and police policy; here tow was authorized under §3353 | Affirmed — inventory search lawful because towing was authorized and search conducted per policy; challenge waived where not meaningfully developed |
| Applicability of Lagenella (immobilized vehicle rule) | Swirsding: Lagenella prohibits inventory of an immobilized but safely parked vehicle | Commonwealth: Lagenella distinguishable because here officer had authority to remove under private property/unattended vehicle statute | Court: Lagenella does not control; towing was authorized and search upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 836 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Meyer, 431 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 1981) (public drunkenness requires intoxication endangering or annoying others)
- Commonwealth v. Lagenella, 83 A.3d 94 (Pa. 2013) (immobilized but safely parked vehicle not in police custody for inventory search)
- Commonwealth v. Healry, 909 A.2d 352 (Pa. Super. 2006) (requirements for reasonable inventory searches)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915 (Pa. 2009) (issues inadequately briefed are waived)