Commonwealth v. Brown
23 A.3d 544
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Brown robbed a gas station at gunpoint using a toy gun; he fled and was pursued by police.
- Chief Zimath stopped Brown’s van after observing suspicious conduct and coordinated with backup officers.
- Golla identified Brown as the robber at trial, corroborated by Zimath’s independent observations.
- Brown was arrested after a struggle during attempted handcuffing, with evidence including the toy gun and clothing seized from the minivan.
- Brown moved to suppress the toy gun and clothing; en banc review followed after an earlier panel decision.
- The court denied suppression and affirmed Brown’s convictions for robbery, aggravated assault of a police officer, and PIC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the toy gun and clothing were unlawfully seized | Brown | Brown | Plain view seizure upheld under limited automobile exception framework. |
| Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence | Brown | Brown | No, the weight claim fails; identification deemed reliable and corroborated. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence for aggravated assault and PIC | Brown | Brown | Sufficient evidence supports aggravated assault on a police officer and PIC. |
| Whether exigent circumstances were required for the warrantless plain view seizure in a vehicle | Commonwealth | Brown | Exigent circumstances limited by Pennsylvania law; plain view seizure valid under McCree Castille concurrence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 982 A.2d 90 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard for suppression review on factual and legal findings)
- Commonwealth v. McCree, 924 A.2d 621 (Pa. 2007) (plain view and limited automobile exception under PA Constitution)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1980) (three-prong plain view test)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 518 Pa. 145 (1988) (limited automobile exception with exigency and probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 526 Pa. 268 (1991) (limited automobile exception with exigency component)
- Commonwealth v. White, 543 Pa. 45 (1995) (exigency and mobility considerations in automobile searches)
- Commonwealth v. Luv, 557 Pa. 570 (1999) (movement of vehicle and exigency in automobile searches)
- Commonwealth v. Graham, 554 Pa. 472 (1998) (plain view doctrine under PA Constitution)
- Commonwealth v. Elllis, 541 Pa. 285 (1995) (two-prong plain view analysis; access limitation discussion)
- Commonwealth v. Petroll, 558 Pa. 565 (1999) (exclusionary doctrine context for plain view)
- Commonwealth v. Perry, 568 Pa. 499 (2002) (divergent views on automobile exception in PA)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 594 Pa. 319 (2007) (vehicle stops and exigency, limits of automobile exception)
- Commonwealth v. Kilgore, 544 Pa. 439 (1995) (immobilization as alternative to warrantless search; exigency focus)
- Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374 (1991) (Pennsylvania Constitution guidance on searches and privacy)