Commonwealth v. Bowmaster
101 A.3d 789
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Police received a tip at 2:10 a.m. that a handgun stolen from Kristen Karchner’s home was in a shed behind Bowmaster’s mobile home; officers arrived ~3:15 a.m.
- Bowmaster’s trailer sat perpendicular to the road; side-door access required walking across a fenced, gated yard with “Private Property” and “Beware of Dog” signs.
- Trooper Ritrosky knocked at the door while Trooper Mincer approached and looked through a window; Mincer observed occupants, a rifle, a large knife, and items he thought were heroin packets and smelled chemicals consistent with synthetic drugs.
- After Bowmaster answered and denied other occupants, Mincer performed a protective sweep, detained two adults and a child, and observed contraband in plain view; a search warrant was later obtained and extensive evidence seized.
- Bowmaster moved to suppress; the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed suppression denial and vacated the sentence, holding the nighttime, warrantless intrusion onto curtilage was unconstitutional because exigent circumstances were not shown.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the side yard was curtilage | Side yard fenced/gated with signs — reasonable expectation of privacy | Interior view through window and open blinds negated expectation | Side yard is curtilage; police intruded onto protected area |
| Whether officers could rely on Mincer’s window observations | Observations from within curtilage are fruit of illegal entry | Observations provided probable cause/exigency to enter | Observations from curtilage do not justify warrantless nighttime entry |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless nighttime entry/search | No exigency — tip alone insufficient and nothing showed imminent destruction, escape, or danger | Presence of firearm, drug smell, fleeing occupant, and weapons justified immediate entry | No exigent circumstances shown; nighttime increases privacy interest; warrant required |
| Whether evidence should be suppressed | Evidence obtained after illegal curtilage entry must be suppressed | Evidence admissible because some observations gave probable cause/exigency | Evidence suppressed; judgment vacated and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Berkheimer, 57 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for reviewing suppression denials and concern over nighttime entries)
- Commonwealth v. Roland, 637 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1994) (factors to balance in assessing exigent circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 384 A.2d 945 (Pa. Super. 1978) (nighttime warrants require additional justification)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 68 A.3d 930 (Pa. Super. 2013) (curtilage and reasonable expectation of privacy analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2009) (front porch/entryway may not be curtilage where public access is typical)
- Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1958) (heightened privacy concern for nighttime intrusion)