Commonwealth v. Dunnavant
63 A.3d 1252
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Commonwealth appeals a June 8, 2012 suppression order barring use of a silent DVD video filmed by a confidential informant inside the defendant's residence.
- A covert digital camera was placed on the CI, recording images (no sound) of events leading to and including the alleged drug transaction at 335 Fruit Avenue, Farrell, PA.
- Video captured the CI entering and exiting the defendant's residence, and the CI interacting with the defendant during a drug-related transaction.
- The surveillance team identified a green Chrysler sedan and the defendant's address, while the CI's safety and anonymity were a concern for future investigations.
- The suppression court held the interior video was an unconstitutional invasion of privacy absent a warrant or applicable exception, and required disclosure of the CI's identity if called at trial; the Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the silent interior video a Fourth/Pa. Constitution privacy violation? | Commonwealth argues Kean distinctions and inadvertent nature salvage admissibility. | Dunnavant argues the intrusion is unconstitutional privacy invasion and not saved by exceptions. | Kean controls; video unlawfully invaded home privacy; suppression affirmed. |
| Does inviting the CI into the residence waive privacy rights? | Invitee inherently can describe events; invitation doesn't permit covert videotaping. | Invitee presence reduces expectation of privacy and could justify disclosure. | Invitation does not authorize covert recording; privacy remains protected. |
| Do federal decisions or other exceptions apply to this Pennsylvania case? | Some federal decisions suggest no warrant needed when resident is voluntarily exposed to government surveillance. | Federal decisions are not binding; Pennsylvania law requires reasonableness under Kean and Blair. | State law governs; no warrantless exception applies; video suppression upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kean, 382 Pa.Super. 587 (Pa. Super. 1989) (defendant has legitimate privacy interest in home and its reflections)
- Commonwealth v. Blair, 394 Pa.Super. 207 (Pa. Super. 1990) (warrantless searches of home per se unreasonable; exceptions required)
- Commonwealth v. Spencer, 888 A.2d 827 (Pa. Super. 2005) (privacy protections under state constitution; focus on government misconduct)
- Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 585 A.2d 1035 (Pa. 1987) (Pennsylvania Constitution provides heightened privacy protections)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 56 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for reviewing suppression orders; factual findings binding, law not)