Commonwealth v. Chambers
55 A.3d 1208
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellee was stopped, detained, and ultimately arrested by Dauphin County probation officers in Harrisburg as part of a public interaction about probation compliance.
- Officer Muza identified himself as a probation officer, called Appellee by name, and ordered him not to run; Appellee began to back away and flee.
- Officer Muza deployed a Taser when Appellee attempted to flee, resulting in control of Appellee and a protective search.
- A cash recovery occurred in an alley adjacent to the scene; a Ziploc bag with crack cocaine was recovered from Appellee’s mouth after custody.
- Appellee moved to suppress all evidence from the stop and subsequent searches on the basis that the initial seizure lacked reasonable suspicion.
- The trial court granted suppression; the Commonwealth appealed, arguing lack of need for reasonable suspicion under probation supervision; the appellate court affirmed suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a probation officer needs reasonable suspicion to speak with a probationer in public. | Chambers | Chambers | No reasonable suspicion required; stop unlawful |
| Whether a probation officer can detain a probationer when the probationer runs away in public. | Chambers | Chambers | Detention without reasonable suspicion invalid; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Altadonna, 817 A.2d 1145 (Pa.Super.2003) (probation supervisee not per se diminished privacy; requires reasonable suspicion for stops/searches)
- Commonwealth v. Gayle, 449 Pa.Super. 247, 673 A.2d 927 (Pa.Super.1996) (probationers do not have diminished expectation of privacy in stops/seizures)
- Commonwealth v. Pickron, 535 Pa. 241, 634 A.2d 1093 (Pa.1993) (without prior agreement or policy, supervisees do not have greater rights)
- Commonwealth v. Rosenfelt, 443 Pa.Super. 616, 662 A.2d 1131 (Pa.Super.1995) (supervisee protection contingent on policy/agreement; not automatic diminished privacy)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108 (Pa.Super.2005) (reasonable suspicion required for investigative stop; flight alone not enough)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 866 A.2d 1143 (Pa.Super.2005) (distinguishes mere encounters from investigative detentions)