Com. v. Wallace, C.
Com. v. Wallace, C. No. 2353 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 7, 2017Background
- On July 23, 2015, Philadelphia Homicide detectives obtained and executed a search warrant at Carl Wallace’s Yeadon residence while investigating a homicide in which the victim was Steven Chestnut.
- Detectives sought electronic devices (cell phones) that might contain a photograph related to the murder; Wallace was a friend of the victim and a potential witness.
- Wallace admitted officers into his home after confirming they had a warrant, but refused to identify the phone’s location and was uncooperative.
- During the search, officers asked whether any contraband was present for officer safety; Wallace (a state parolee) said a gun was in the closet and indicated it was what he was on parole for.
- Officers found a loaded .40 handgun in a shaving kit under towels; Wallace, a convicted felon, was arrested and charged under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1).
- Wallace’s pretrial suppression motion was denied; after a stipulated bench trial he was convicted and sentenced to 4½ to 10 years. Wallace appealed the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Wallace's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements and gun should be suppressed as beyond warrant scope/violative of Miranda and Fourth Amendment | Wallace argued the search exceeded the warrant’s scope (warrant sought electronic devices), questioning was improper, he wasn’t free to leave, and his admission must be suppressed | Police say they had a valid warrant for the residence, Wallace was not in custody or being interrogated for Miranda, questioning was for officer safety, and Wallace volunteered the gun’s location | Denied suppression: court held Wallace was not in custody/interrogated, officers reasonably asked about contraband for safety, Wallace volunteered the gun’s location, and inevitable discovery would apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Korenkiewicz, 743 A.2d 958 (Pa. Super. 1999) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Miranda/custody analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 989 A.2d 883 (Pa. 2010) (right to counsel attaches at initiation of adversary proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Curry, 900 A.2d 390 (Pa. Super. 2006) (parolees have diminished expectation of privacy)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 979 A.2d 879 (Pa. Super. 2009) (explaining the inevitable discovery rule)