Com. v. White, K.
2466 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 18, 2017Background
- On May 16, 2014, Officer Czapor conducted plainclothes surveillance for narcotics at Darien & Lycoming Streets in Philadelphia around 9:45 p.m.
- Appellant Kyle White arrived in a Chrysler, entered 4100 Darien Street briefly, then engaged with a Chevy Astro (driven by Kenneth Cobbs); after an apparent hand-to-window exchange White left holding and counting currency.
- Cobbs was stopped by backup and found to have six packets of crack cocaine; Czapor then arrested White outside his vehicle.
- Officers entered the residence through an unlocked door to secure it, found it occupied upstairs, and detained the occupants; the homeowner (White’s mother) arrived minutes later and gave oral and written consent to search.
- The consenting search produced three handguns, 48 packets of crack cocaine, and a digital scale; White was convicted after a waiver trial of firearm and drug offenses and received an aggregate 4–8 year sentence.
- On appeal White challenged the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence, arguing the warrantless entry lacked exigent circumstances and tainted the subsequent consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of arrest/probable cause to arrest White | N/A (Commonwealth contends observations supported probable cause) | White argued officer’s observations were insufficient to establish probable cause for a drug transaction | Waived on appeal (not raised in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)) |
| Legality of warrantless entry / exigent circumstances | Commonwealth argued probable cause + circumstances justified entry without warrant | White argued entry lacked exigent circumstances so any subsequent consent/search was tainted and evidence should be suppressed | Court found no exigent circumstances to justify the initial entry, but search was lawful because the homeowner gave voluntary consent after police secured the premises; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 46 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 68 A.3d 930 (Pa. Super. 2013) (factors for exigent-circumstances analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009) (probable cause defined by totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Bostick, 958 A.2d 543 (Pa. Super. 2008) (burden on Commonwealth to prove exigency and caution in applying exception)