Com. v. Wheatley, R., 125 A.3d 450

Appellant Wheatley was convicted of DUI at a single-to-two-year imprisonment term plus one year probation after a suppression ruling and stipulation to a non-jury trial.
Officer Patrick observed Wheatley in a shopping-center lot early morning, noting erratic driving and a stop in a fire lane.
A passenger exited Wheatley’s truck; Wheatley told the officer he stopped to get cigarettes and admitted having a few beers.
Officer Patrick detected slurred speech and a strong odor of alcohol, then conducted a Portable Breathalyzer test and placed Wheatley under arrest.
Wheatley challenged the suppression ruling, arguing the initial police interaction was an unlawful seizure; the court denied suppression and found him guilty.
The Superior Court affirmed the judgment, holding the initial contact was not a mere encounter and that suppression was not warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the initial police contact was a mere encounter or an investigatory detention	Wheatley argues it was an investigative detention	Commonwealth argues it was a mere encounter	Initial contact was not a mere encounter (unlawful if only a passive moment) and involved some coercive interaction
Whether Wheatley’s seizure required suppression of evidence	Wheatley contends suppression of the resulting evidence was required	Commonwealth contends the detention was permissible and admissible	Suppression court erred in treating the contact as a mere encounter; evidence not suppressed on this basis
Whether the suppression court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were correct	Wheatley asserts incorrect factual findings supporting suppression denial	Commonwealth asserts findings supported by record	Suppression court erred in its factual/conclusory determinations leading to denial of suppression

Commonwealth v. Sanders, 42 A.3d 325 (Pa. Super. 2012) (on evaluating suppression rulings and burdens of proof in encounters with police)
Commonwealth v. Downey, 39 A.3d 401 (Pa. Super. 2012) (distinction between mere encounters and seizures; reasonable suspicion standard)
Commonwealth v. Au, 42 A.3d 1002 (Pa. Super. 2012) (control and coercion considerations in stops; voluntary response to requests)
Commonwealth v. Kearney, 601 A.2d 346 (Pa. Super. 1992) (standard for investigative detention based on reasonable suspicion)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 73 A.3d 609 (Pa. Super. 2013) (objective totality-of-circumstances approach to encounters and detentions)
Commonwealth v. Lyles, 54 A.3d 76 (Pa. Super. 2012) (focus on whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)