Commonwealth v. Forsythe
164 A.3d 1283
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- On June 3, 2015, Lycoming County Narcotics Enforcement Unit (NEU) conducted an interdiction roving patrol coordinated by Detective Al Diaz; municipal officers (including Sgt. Chris Kriner of Old Lycoming Township PD) participated as part-time NEU members.
- Kriner, in full uniform in an unmarked vehicle, observed a Chevy Blazer in a known high-crime Williamsport parking lot; two men entered a store, returned, and left; Kriner followed the Blazer when it exited and drove into Loyalsock Township (both locations are in Lycoming County).
- Kriner stopped the Blazer for a nonworking license plate light; after the stop he spoke to the occupants, observed suspicious movements, and both occupants were ultimately found to be in possession of drugs; Forsythe (passenger) was arrested.
- Forsythe moved to suppress the drugs, statements, and evidence seized, arguing the stop violated the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act (MPJA) because Kriner acted outside his primary municipal jurisdiction and the county task-force agreement lacked municipal ordinance ratification.
- The trial court granted suppression in part; the Commonwealth appealed, arguing (1) no MPJA violation, (2) suppression was unwarranted, and (3) officers’ observations should not have been suppressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kriner’s stop violated the MPJA | Commonwealth: Kriner was acting under a county NEU request and task-force authority, so MPJA permits enforcement throughout Lycoming County | Forsythe: Kriner lacked jurisdiction; task-force agreement required municipal ordinance ratification under intergovernmental cooperation rules | Court held no MPJA violation: Kriner acted pursuant to NEU/task-force request and had countywide authority under MPJA; suppression improper |
| Whether evidence seized should be suppressed due to jurisdictional defect | Commonwealth: evidence admissible because stop lawful under MPJA | Forsythe: evidence tainted by illegal stop outside jurisdiction | Court held suppression unwarranted and reversed trial court’s suppression order |
| Whether officers’ observations at stop are admissible | Commonwealth: observations lawful as incident to a valid stop | Forsythe: observations should be suppressed as fruits of illegal stop | Court held officers’ observations admissible because stop was lawful under MPJA |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Guzman, 44 A.3d 688 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression orders)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473 (Pa. 2010) (scope of appellate review on suppression)
- Commonwealth v. Beaman, 880 A.2d 578 (Pa. 2005) (de novo review where facts undisputed)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (legal conclusions on suppression reviewed plenarily)
- Commonwealth v. Chernosky, 874 A.2d 123 (Pa. Super. 2005) (MPJA construed liberally to permit action outside jurisdiction under enumerated circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Lehman, 870 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2005) (MPJA interpretation)
- Commonwealth v. Ebersole, 492 A.2d 436 (Pa. Super. 1985) (MPJA purpose: enable arrests outside primary jurisdiction and promote interdepartmental cooperation)
- Commonwealth v. Sestina, 546 A.2d 109 (Pa. Super. 1988) (MPJA encourages cooperation between municipal and state police)