Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Shabezz, S., 166 A.3d 278

On June 1, 2013, police surveillance at a McDonald’s/7‑11 lot led officers to block in a red Acura and a tan Nissan; passenger Saleem Shabezz fled, was chased and arrested nearby.
Officers searched the Acura shortly after the seizure and recovered large quantities of marijuana, paraphernalia, cash, and a handgun; contraband was also found on Shabezz.
The trial court granted suppression of all physical evidence, finding the vehicle stop and consequent seizure unjustified and discrediting key officer testimony.
The Commonwealth appealed, arguing (inter alia) that as a passenger Shabezz lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the areas searched and therefore could not obtain suppression.
The Superior Court affirmed the suppression based on the illegality of the stop and on standing under Brendlin; a concurrence questioned whether expectation of privacy was required.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a passenger must show a privacy expectation in the searched areas to suppress evidence discovered after an unconstitutional vehicle seizure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a passenger must show a reasonable expectation of privacy in the specific areas searched to suppress evidence obtained after an unconstitutional vehicle stop	Shabezz: No; evidence seized after an illegal stop is fruit of the poisonous tree and suppressible without separate proof of a privacy interest	Commonwealth: Yes; passenger must demonstrate a Katz‑type reasonable expectation of privacy in the compartments/areas where evidence was found	Court held for Shabezz: passenger need not prove a privacy interest; evidence obtained by exploitation of an illegal seizure is suppressible unless the taint is purged
Whether the evidence here was tainted or purged (causal nexus / attenuation / independent source / inevitable discovery)	Shabezz: The search immediately followed the illegal seizure; no intervening circumstances purged the taint	Commonwealth: (argued the passenger lacked privacy interest; later raised seizure‑didn't-occur-because-of-fleeing, but waived)	Court held evidence was direct fruit of the illegal seizure, no attenuation/independent source/inevitable discovery present, so suppression proper

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passenger is seized during a traffic stop)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree / exploitation and attenuation test)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (privacy‑expectation framework for Fourth Amendment standing)
United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 (1980) (abolished automatic standing in federal law)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) (origin of the exclusionary rule)
United States v. Mosley, 454 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2006) (applies fruit of the poisonous tree to passenger after illegal stop)