165 A.3d 976
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- On July 21, 2015, two parole agents (Kriger and Gross) went to Navarro Banks’s parole-approved residence after receiving an anonymous tip alleging parole violations.
- The agents knocked, Banks answered on the front porch, and when asked whether he had anything in the home that would violate parole, Banks admitted to having a firearm and synthetic marijuana.
- The agents entered the residence, located contraband, then called police; police obtained a search warrant and seized a firearm, synthetic marijuana, multiple cell phones, a scale, and other items.
- Banks was charged with PWID, possession, paraphernalia, and being a person not to possess firearms; he filed a motion to suppress arguing the search of his residence was improper because it was based on an unreliable, uncorroborated anonymous tip.
- At the suppression hearing, the trial court questioned whether the porch encounter constituted an investigative detention (seizure) rather than a consensual encounter; the court granted suppression on the ground that the agents had effectuated an investigative detention without reasonable suspicion.
- The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the trial court erred by granting suppression on a seizure theory Banks had not raised in his written motion, thus depriving the Commonwealth of an opportunity to litigate that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Banks' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence found in the residence should be suppressed because it was obtained following an investigatory seizure on the porch | The encounter was tainted by the anonymous tip and the agents’ conduct; the agents unlawfully detained Banks on the porch (argued at hearing) | Bank’s seizure claim was not raised in the written motion to suppress; trial court could not grant relief on an unpled theory without affording the Commonwealth a chance to respond | The Superior Court reversed: trial court abused its discretion by suppressing evidence on a seizure theory not pled in Banks’ motion to suppress (issue waived) |
| Whether a motion to suppress must plead seizure claims with particularity under Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(D) | (Implicit) The motion to suppress challenged the search as unsupported by corroborated tip; relied on suppression hearing to raise detention theory | Rule 581(D) requires specific grounds; failure to raise an argument waives it and prevents the Commonwealth from presenting targeted evidence | Court held Rule 581(D) applies; because Banks did not plead or amend to include seizure, Commonwealth had no opportunity to respond and issue is waived |
| Whether the trial court properly applied Whiting to sua sponte grant relief on an unpled theory | Banks relied on hearing argument about detention to support suppression | Commonwealth argued Whiting forbids courts from granting suppression on unraised issues absent notice and opportunity to respond | Court relied on Whiting to reverse: trial court abused discretion by ruling on an unpled seizure theory without testimony/evidence on that issue |
| Whether the underlying reasonable-suspicion search argument must be addressed on appeal | Banks argued search lacked corroboration of anonymous tip | Commonwealth did not need to address because trial court granted relief on unpled seizure theory | Court declined to address the merits of the reasonable-suspicion/search claim because suppression was reversed on procedural waiver grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Arthur, 62 A.3d 424 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for suppression-order appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Whiting, 767 A.2d 1083 (Pa. Super. 2001) (trial court may not grant suppression on issues not raised by defendant or supported by evidence at the hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Andre, 17 A.3d 951 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Commonwealth may appeal pretrial suppression order that terminates or substantially handicaps prosecution)