Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Dunnavant, G.
107 A.3d 29
Pa.2014Background
- Commonwealth appeals a Superior Court decision that suppressed a silent video recording.
- A covert CI wore a hidden camera on a drug buy that the police anticipated would occur on a street corner.
- The CI was then taken by appellee into appellee’s residence where the drug sale occurred and the camera recorded inside the home, without audio.
- Trial and Superior Court suppression relied on Kean and Pennsylvania privacy protections in the home.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reverses, holding Article I, Section 8 protects the home but the circumstances here do not warrant suppression; the evidence is admissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PA Const. Art. I, §8 bars the CI with hidden camera from recording inside a suspect’s home. | Commonwealth argues the home invasion is not warranted due to lack of deliberate police intrusion. | Dunnavant argues the home’s privacy is sacrosanct and the covert videotaping violates not only Fourth Amendment but §8. | No suppression; recording admissible. |
| Whether the Kean framework controls or Blystone/Rekasi framework applies to the video scenario. | Commonwealth contends Kean is distinguishable but should not control; argues for lesser privacy. | Dunnavant maintains Brion/Selby line protects home privacy; Kean should control. | Blystone/Rekasi framework governs; no per se suppression. |
| Whether the evidence should be suppressed due to lack of police orchestrated intrusion into the home. | Commonwealth emphasizes unplanned home entry by appellee’s invitation; argues no warrant needed. | Dunnavant asserts no deliberate police intrusion; exigency and invitation negate suppression. | Evidence admissible; no constitutional violation under these facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Blystone, 549 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1988) (one-party consensual interceptions not per se unlawful under state constitution; disclosure risk framework)
- Commonwealth v. Brion, 652 A.2d 287 (Pa. 1994) (home privacy heightened; police cannot send CI into home for recording without warrant)
- Commonwealth v. Rekasie, 778 A.2d 624 (Pa. 2001) (return to Katz/Harlan framework; middle ground on privacy expectations in communications)
- Commonwealth v. Kean, 556 A.2d 374 (Pa. Super. 1989) (surreptitious home videotaping; precepts discussed but not controlling for video in present case)
- Commonwealth v. Selby, 688 A.2d 698 (Pa. 1997) (CI entered home with consent for drug buy; upheld Brion-like privacy concerns (OAJC))