Commonwealth v. Farris, 48 Pa. D. & C.5th 326

On Aug. 3, 2014 at ~1:17 AM Officer Cook stopped a white Cadillac after hearing unusually loud exhaust; the stop was for a suspected muffler violation.
Officer Cook observed occupants making "dipping and grabbing" movements inside the car after spotlighting it; he believed the movements were consistent with hiding drugs or weapons.
Officer Cook summoned Officer DeCarbo and his certified narcotics canine. DeCarbo arrived within ~10 minutes and the dog alerted at the driver and passenger door handles.
After the canine alert, officers searched the vehicle and seized a glass tube and a copper scrubber the officer identified as drug paraphernalia.
Defendant moved to suppress evidence as the product of an unlawful search and, alternatively, for a writ of habeas corpus arguing the Commonwealth failed to make a prima facie case. The court held the stop lawful but found no reasonable suspicion to detain and conduct the canine sniff/search.
Court suppressed all evidence from the canine and interior search, granted habeas corpus as to the drug paraphernalia count, and denied habeas as to the muffler violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain occupants and conduct a canine exterior sniff after a traffic stop	Movements of occupants ("dipping/grabbing") plus nighttime stop justified reasonable suspicion of drug activity and canine search	Movements and nighttime alone are only a hunch; no frisk, no extreme nervousness, no other articulable facts to support further detention or canine sniff	No — totality of circumstances insufficient; canine sniff and subsequent vehicle search were unlawful and suppressed
Whether evidence found after canine alert may be admitted	Canine alert at door handles provided probable cause to search interior	Canine sniff/alert was the fruit of an unlawful detention; alert cannot cure lack of reasonable suspicion	No — evidence excluded as fruit of illegal search
Whether Commonwealth made a prima facie case for possession of drug paraphernalia	Seized items (pipe, Chore Boy) show paraphernalia used for drugs	Seizure resulted from illegal search; no admissible evidence to prove paraphernalia charge	Guilty charge stricken — habeas granted for paraphernalia count
Whether Commonwealth made a prima facie case for muffler violation	Officer heard loud exhaust; Defendant admitted muffler missing	Defendant conceded noisy exhaust	Yes — prima facie case established; habeas denied for muffler violation

Comm. v. Buchert, 68 A.3d 911 (Pa. Super. 2013) (nighttime furtive movement and nervousness can support a Terry protective search under totality of circumstances)
Comm. v. Mover, 954 A.2d 659 (Pa. Super. 2008) (furtive movements and nervousness alone do not establish reasonable suspicion)
Comm. v. Reppert, 814 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Super. 2002) (furtive movements create only a hunch insufficient for further detention)
Comm. v. Cartagena, 63 A.3d 294 (Pa. Super. 2013) (nighttime stop, tinted windows, and nervousness alone insufficient for protective search)
Comm. v. Bailey, 947 A.2d 808 (Pa. Super. 2008) (hearing unusually loud exhaust permits reasonable inference of a muffler violation and justifies a traffic stop)
Comm. v. Shabazz, 18 A.3d 1217 (Pa. Super. 2011) (articulable specific facts and permissible inferences are required to establish reasonable suspicion)