Commonwealth v. Enimpah
62 A.3d 1028
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Enimpah and Tillison were passengers in a Chrysler Concorde stopped by Officer Minnick, who observed a plastic bag fall from Enimpah's lap.
- The officer obtained consent to search the vehicle from the driver and found the bag, which appeared to contain crack cocaine.
- Enimpah and Tillison denied knowledge or possession of the bag.
- Enimpah moved to suppress the evidence as violative of the Fourth Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1, Section 8.
- At suppression hearing, Commonwealth declined to call the officer or present evidence, arguing Enimpah bore initial burden of proof to show privacy in contraband or car.
- Judge Charles granted suppression, holding Commonwealth failed to meet its burden; Commonwealth timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden-shifting at suppression hearing | Enimpah bore initial burden of privacy; Commonwealth need not present evidence first. | Commonwealth must go forward initially and prove legality of search under Rule 581(H). | Merits burden on Commonwealth; defendant must show privacy, but Commonwealth must produce evidence first |
| Role of reasonable expectation of privacy | Enimpah must demonstrate his personal privacy interest to prevail. | Commonwealth bears burden to show lawfulness regardless of privacy demonstration. | Defendant must establish personal privacy; Commonwealth must present evidence on legality |
| Effect of Rule 581 on suppression | Rule 581 requires Commonwealth to go forward and persuade court; failure to do so warrants suppression. | Rule 581 does not require defendant to bear the burden of privacy at merits if Commonwealth offers no proof. | Court correctly required production by Commonwealth; suppression affirmed due to lack of Commonwealth evidence |
| Impact of standing rules in possessory offenses | Standing is automatic in possessory offenses; merits analysis follows. | Automatic standing allows merits focus but does not erase privacy burden. | Automatic standing respected; merits phase requires Commonwealth production and defendant privacy persuasion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Millner, 585 Pa. 237, 888 A.2d 680 (2005) (privacy requirement to prevail on suppression; personal privacy needed)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428 (Pa. Super. 2009) (merits analysis includes whether defendant has legitimate expectation of privacy)
- Commonwealth v. Jury, 431 Pa. Super. 129, 636 A.2d 164 (1993) (burden of producing and persuading evidence defined)
- Commonwealth v. Sell, 504 Pa. 46, 470 A.2d 457 (1983) (standing issues in suppression context; heightened privacy protections)
- Commonwealth v. Nester, 551 Pa. 157, 709 A.2d 879 (1998) (precedes discussions on burdens and privacy in suppression)