Commonwealth v. Berkheimer
57 A.3d 171
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Burkheimer and Berkheimer appeal judgments following a stipulated bench trial on marijuana and drug paraphernalia offenses.
- Warrantless nighttime entry into the Berkheimer home by four PSP troopers proceeded from an investigative detainer, with a tip about Lecroy’s location.
- Troopers smelled marijuana at the doorway; they detained occupants and obtained warrants hours later.
- Searches found marijuana and related items in the Berkheimer home; police admitted the entry was unlawful but sought to admit evidence via inevitable discovery/independent source.
- Trial court held the entry unlawful but admissible the evidence under independent source; en banc court reversed, concluding taint could not be purged and ordered discharge of the Berkheimers.
- Record shows single-team police conduct and failure to demonstrate independent source or exigent circumstances; privacy rights under Pennsylvania Constitution were violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether independent source/inevitable discovery applies | Berkheimer argues no independent source to purge taint | Commonwealth argues independent source or inevitable discovery applies | Independent source not satisfied; taint unrecoverable; suppression warranted |
| Whether Article I, Section 8 privacy rights bar tainted discovery | Privacy rights bar any tainted evidence | Privacy rights do not bar if inevitable discovery exists | Pennsylvania privacy rights bar tainted evidence; inevitable discovery cannot purge taint |
| Whether nighttime entry without exigent circumstances violated Fourth Amendment/Pa. Const. | Entry was unlawful; no exigent circumstances | Some degree of exigency existed to justify entry | Entry unlawful; taint cannot be purged; exclusion required |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 535 Pa. 560 (1993) (privacy and independent source limits under Article I, §8)
- Commonwealth v. Melendez, 676 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1996) (independent source rule limited when same officers tainted evidence)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1988) (independent source/inevitable discovery framework; sources must be independent from taint)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) (inevitable discovery concept explained as purge of taint)
- Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374 (1991) (privacy rights under Pa. Const.; exclusionary rule serves substantive rights)