Commonwealth v. Anderson
40 A.3d 1245
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Police investigating a burglary observed a hole in the door and smelled marijuana in the apartment; they entered, found Anderson sleeping, and observed marijuana and two roaches in the living room.
- Anderson admitted there were two baggies of marijuana on a table; officers obtained consent to search but he refused; a warrant was issued listing marijuana and other controlled substances and related items.
- Search yielded marijuana plus cocaine, a digital scale, Ziplock baggies, and baggies with the corners cut off.
- Suppression court granted the motion, finding the warrant lacked probable cause for items beyond marijuana and that the warrant was too broad; the court severed the marijuana portion from the rest.
- Commonwealth appeals challenging the suppression order on two grounds: (1) cocaine and paraphernalia were improperly suppressed despite a marijuana-specific warrant; (2) the warrant’s description of items to be searched was sufficiently particular.
- Court reverses and remands, holding cocaine and paraphernalia were admissible under plain view and inevitable discovery doctrines; severability doctrine applied to uphold the marijuana search while excising the rest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cocaine and drug paraphernalia were properly admitted under plain view. | Commonwealth argues plain view applies since officers were lawfully present. | Anderson contends no probable cause for items beyond marijuana and plain view does not apply. | Cocaine and paraphernalia admissible under plain view. |
| Whether the warrant’s item description was sufficiently particular. | Commonwealth argues severability salvages the marijuana portion and the rest is invalid only if not properly described. | Anderson argues the warrant was essentially general for the non-marijuana items. | The warrant was severable and not essentially general; marijuana portion valid. |
| Whether inevitable discovery supports admission of the cocaine and paraphernalia. | N/A (implicit to support admission) | N/A | Cocaine and paraphernalia also admissible under inevitable discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bagley, 408 Pa. Super. 188, 596 A.2d 811 (Pa. Super. 1991) (severability of invalid portions of a warrant if the remainder describes evidence with probable cause and is not essentially general)
- Commonwealth v. Casuccio, 308 Pa. Super. 450, 454 A.2d 621 (Pa. Super. 1982) (warrant must not be essentially general; severability required when some items lack probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Sodomsky, 939 A.2d 863, 370 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Pa. Super. 2007) (plain view admissibility requires lawful presence, not obscured view, readily apparent incriminating nature, lawful access)
- Commonwealth v. McCullum, 529 Pa. 117, 602 A.2d 313 (Pa. 1992) (plain view doctrine adopted by Pennsylvania Supreme Court)
- Commonwealth v. Dean, 940 A.2d 514 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for suppression appeals; appellate plenary review on legal conclusions)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 110 S. Ct. 2301 (Supreme Court) (carved out limitations on inadvertence in plain view)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S. Ct. 2022 (Supreme Court) (plain view framework; lawful vantage and discovery of incriminating evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Bailey, 986 A.2d 860 (Pa. Super. 2009) (inevitable discovery doctrine requires demonstrating that illegally obtained evidence would have been discovered lawfully)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 555 Pa. 354, 724 A.2d 895 (Pa. 1999) (inevitable discovery considerations when unlawful seizure occurred)
- Commonwealth v. Ingram, 814 A.2d 264 (Pa. Super. 2002) (inevitable discovery discussion in Pa. appellate context)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 605 Pa. 188, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (plain view admissibility after lawful entry)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 736 A.2d 624 (Pa. Super. 1999) (plain view admissibility; drugs seized in plain view when officers lawfully present)