Com. v. Withrow, S., 1287 WDA 2016

At 3:55 a.m., officers responded to a welfare check: a running Ford Escort in a convenience‑store lot with six sleeping occupants; Withrow was the driver and Livingston the front passenger.
Officers repeatedly knocked; when occupants did not awaken, an officer opened the passenger door, turned off the ignition, and removed the keys for safety.
After being awakened, officers ran a background check; while one officer checked IDs, both Withrow and Livingston made furtive movements toward the center console.
Officer Coll ordered both to show their hands; Livingston kept moving and was removed and seated on the sidewalk. Withrow refused to exit, reached again toward the console, and was forcibly removed and patted down; he consented to a search of his person and drugs were found.
Before beginning an inventory search of the car, Officer Coll observed a loaded firearm in plain view on top of the center console between driver and passenger. Withrow and Livingston were charged; Withrow moved to suppress physical evidence and later was convicted after a stipulated non‑jury trial.
Trial court denied suppression, convicted Withrow of being a person not to possess a firearm (18 Pa.C.S. §6105), possession with intent to deliver (heroin), and driving while license suspended; sentence 3–6 years; appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Withrow)	Held
Were officers’ actions a lawful investigatory detention and subsequent searches constitutional?	Initial contact was a welfare check (mere encounter); furtive movements, refusal to comply, and suspended license provided reasonable suspicion and safety grounds for detention and pat‑down; weapon was later in plain view.	Initial encounter was only a welfare check; officers unlawfully extended detention after turning off ignition and removing keys; no articulable facts supported an investigative stop or search before evidence was discovered.	Denied suppression: encounter began as welfare check but furtive movements and noncompliance created reasonable suspicion for detention and frisk; pat‑down and plain‑view firearm observation were lawful.
Was evidence sufficient to convict Withrow of unlawful possession of the firearm?	Furtive repeated movements toward the center console, gun located within inches on console between driver and passenger, support inference of constructive (joint) possession.	Gun was not on Withrow’s person, not registered to him, and movements were insufficient as matter of law to prove possession.	Conviction affirmed: circumstantial evidence permitted inference of conscious dominion/constructive possession (including joint possession).

Commonwealth v. Collins, 950 A.2d 1041 (Pa. Super. 2008) (factors for welfare check and determining whether encounter became a seizure)
Commonwealth v. Conte, 931 A.2d 690 (Pa. Super. 2007) (officer may check welfare of occupants of parked car)
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 614 A.2d 1378 (Pa. 1992) (officer may conduct limited frisk when suspicious conduct suggests danger)
Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. 2013) (constructive possession defined as conscious dominion; inferred from totality of circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426 (Pa. Super. 2012) (constructive possession as pragmatic inference; power and intent to control)
Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 148 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
In the Interest of D.M., 781 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 2001) (constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures)
United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1977) (privacy protection principles under Fourth Amendment)