Commonwealth v. Coleman
130 A.3d 38
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Appellant Mark Coleman was on state parole and had a condition to report any police contact; an anonymous tip claimed he was a major local drug dealer and had a driving‑while‑suspended citation. Parole agents confirmed the traffic citation and that Coleman had reported an address at 102 Center Avenue.
- Parole agents repeatedly attempted unscheduled compliance contacts; Coleman missed at least one arranged meeting and was not at the apartment when agents planned a visit.
- Agents obtained a key from the rental office manager, entered the apartment without consent or a warrant, and observed in plain view a digital scale with white powder and a Comcast bill addressed to Coleman; a trash bag in the living room contained over 100 grams of cocaine.
- City police field‑tested the substance as positive for cocaine; Allegheny County Detective charged Coleman with PWID, possession, and paraphernalia offenses.
- Coleman moved to suppress the warrantless entry and search; the trial court denied suppression. After a hung jury on the first trial, a second jury convicted Coleman and the court sentenced him to 5–10 years plus probation. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed both sufficiency and suppression and ultimately reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parole agents had reasonable suspicion to enter/search 102 Center Ave without a warrant | Commonwealth: agents had corroboration (citation for suspended license, missed meetings, address confirmation) supporting a compliance check and search | Coleman: entry based on an anonymous, uncorroborated tip; agents lacked specific, articulable facts to justify a warrantless entry or search | Held: Entry/search violated Fourth Amendment and Pa. Const. Art. I, § 8; anonymous tip + missed contacts insufficient for reasonable suspicion; judgment reversed on that ground |
| Whether Commonwealth proved constructive possession and intent to deliver beyond a reasonable doubt | Commonwealth: circumstantial evidence (Coleman gave the address to parole, Comcast bill to Coleman inside, men’s clothing present, >100g cocaine, scale, expert testimony) established constructive possession and intent | Coleman: no direct evidence he was inside or in possession; evidence showed only prior residency | Held: Evidence was sufficient to support convictions on possession and PWID under totality of circumstances (but suppression error required reversal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review; consider all admitted evidence and draw inferences for the Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (possession and intent to deliver assessed by totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 26 A.3d 1078 (Pa. Super. 2011) (constructive possession elements: dominion, control, intent)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 85 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. 2014) (parole home visit where agents lawfully present; odor provided reasonable suspicion to search)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1990) (anonymous tip may justify investigative stop if corroborated and reliable under totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 750 A.2d 795 (Pa. 2000) (plurality addressing reliability of anonymous tips and limits on stops)
- Commonwealth v. Wimbush, 750 A.2d 807 (Pa. 2000) (companion to Goodwin on anonymous tip reliability)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 692 A.2d 1031 (Pa. 1997) (parolees have diminished expectation of privacy but retain Fourth Amendment protections; parole search authority limited by reasonable suspicion statute)