196 A.3d 253
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Police executed a warrant to search a house formerly used by Edward Chesney; while there officers observed a Buick LeSabre parked in the private driveway.
- Trooper Higdon reported seeing a small glass vial with a black plastic cap inside the vehicle; officers then opened and searched the car.
- Search of the LeSabre yielded PCP (about 92.31 grams), jars and vials used for packaging, a digital scale, multiple cellphones (including a Maxwest phone), three handguns, ammunition, and documents bearing Chesney’s name.
- Cellphone messages recovered were used by the Commonwealth to link Chesney to drug distribution and to identify communications supporting several delivery-related counts.
- Trial court suppressed evidence from the house (warrant found invalid) but denied suppression for items seized from the LeSabre; Chesney was convicted and sentenced.
- On appeal the Superior Court reversed the denial of suppression for the LeSabre search and vacated the judgment of sentence, reasoning the officers observed the vial while on private property pursuant to a defective warrant and thus lacked a lawful vantage point to rely on plain view or the automobile exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence seized from LeSabre (warrantless search) | Commonwealth: vial was in plain view from a lawful vantage; automobile exception permits warrantless search with probable cause | Chesney: vehicle parked in private driveway—expectation of privacy; officers lacked lawful access so plain view and automobile exception do not apply | Reversed denial of suppression—search was unlawful because officers viewed/seized from private curtilage without lawful right to be there |
| Validity of relying on automobile exception after house warrant found invalid | Commonwealth: Gary allows automobile exception; probable cause justified vehicle search | Chesney: Gary does not authorize intrusion into home/curtilage; Loughnane and Collins limit automobile exception for vehicles on private property | Court held automobile exception inapplicable to vehicle parked on private property/curtilage absent lawful access; search unreasonable |
| Whether officers were lawfully on the property (vantage point) | Commonwealth: driveway is generally accessible like visitor/delivery access; observations allowed | Chesney: officers were at property only because of defective warrant and so had no lawful vantage point | Court found no evidence police had lawful reason to be on property; observations were from an unlawful position and tainted |
| Need to address remaining trial issues (e.g., Rule 404(b), discovery, sufficiency) | Commonwealth: (not decided on appeal) | Chesney: (not reached if suppression granted) | Moot—court did not address remaining issues after suppression reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) (adopted federal automobile exception for warrantless vehicle searches based on probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Loughnane, 173 A.3d 733 (Pa. 2017) (automobile exception does not apply to vehicles parked in private driveways/curtilage)
- Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (2018) (Fourth Amendment bars warrantless vehicle search within home curtilage; automobile exception cannot justify curtilage intrusion)
- Commonwealth v. Simmen, 58 A.3d 811 (Pa.Super. 2012) (police may enter driveway while conducting a legitimate investigation and observations from visitor-accessible areas are not Fourth Amendment searches)
- Commonwealth v. Eichler, 133 A.3d 775 (Pa.Super. 2016) (similar to Simmen; observations of vehicle damage in driveway permitted during investigation)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine; evidence obtained by exploitation of an illegal search is inadmissible)
- Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 370 A.2d 1172 (Pa. 1977) (application of attenuation analysis to determine whether taint of illegal police action is purged)