Commonwealth v. Ford
175 A.3d 985
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Police responded to radio calls reporting a person bleeding, someone screaming, and a person with a gun in an area where the victim address (2010 Wilmot St.) abuts 4663 Ditman St.; officers went to 4663 Ditman after neighbors pointed it out.
- Officers heard multiple voices screaming inside 4663 Ditman, knocked, received no answer, and then entered through an unlocked door; the house appeared under construction and had lights on.
- Inside, Officer Biles observed Anthony Ford make a swinging motion and place an object on a kitchen chair; the officer handcuffed Ford and recovered a .38 caliber handgun from the chair with its serial number obscured.
- Parties stipulated that the serial number was obscured by corrosion and later recovered by polishing.
- Ford was convicted after a non-jury trial of possession of a firearm prohibited (18 Pa.C.S. § 6105) and possession of a firearm with an altered manufacturer’s number (18 Pa.C.S. § 6110.2(a)); he appealed suppression denial and the § 6110.2 conviction.
- Superior Court affirmed denial of suppression (exigent circumstances/need to render aid justified warrantless entry) but reversed conviction under § 6110.2, holding natural corrosion does not constitute an alteration, change, removal, or obliteration by a person.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless entry/search of Ford's home was unlawful | Police entry lacked probable cause and exigent circumstances; evidence should be suppressed | Officers reasonably believed someone inside needed immediate aid and there was danger; entry was justified | Denied suppression; entry justified by exigent circumstances (screaming, reports of bleeding/gun, high-crime area) |
| Whether corrosion that obscured serial number violates 18 Pa.C.S. § 6110.2(a) | § 6110.2 criminalizes possession of firearms whose manufacturer’s number is altered/changed/removed/obliterated regardless of cause | Corrosion is a natural process, not an intentional alteration; statute targets human defacement | Reversed conviction under § 6110.2(a); natural corrosion does not fall within those terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Roland, 637 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1994) (factors for exigent circumstances and warrantless entry into a home)
- Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (2009) (objective reasonableness for belief that immediate aid is needed)
- Ryburn v. Huff, 565 U.S. 469 (2012) (police may make split-second decisions under tense, rapidly evolving circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Potts, 73 A.3d 1275 (Pa. Super. 2013) (exigent circumstances justified entry when screams and emergency indicators persisted)