Commonwealth v. Freeman, 150 A.3d 32

On Feb. 25, 2014 Trooper Gerken stopped Shaun Freeman’s rental Chevrolet Malibu on I‑80/I‑380 after observing unsafe lane changes and close following in winter conditions.
On approach Trooper Gerken smelled strong air fresheners from the vehicle and observed Freeman to be nervous and give inconsistent travel explanations; the vehicle was a one‑day rental from New Rochelle, NY, headed toward Binghamton.
Trooper Gerken ran license/criminal checks, issued a written warning for the traffic violation, requested backup, and asked to search the car; Freeman refused.
A K‑9 unit was summoned ~26 minutes after the stop; the dog alerted on the vehicle’s exterior. Freeman was transported to the barracks, a search warrant was obtained, and a search uncovered ~80 pounds of marijuana.
Freeman moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unlawful stop and an unreasonable prolonged detention/canine sniff; the trial court denied suppression, convicted Freeman of drug offenses, and sentenced him. The Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Freeman)	Held
Was the initial vehicle stop lawful?	Trooper had probable cause based on unsafe lane changes and following too closely.	Trooper testimony was conclusory, lacked specific articulable facts to show violation.	Stop was supported by probable cause; MVR and testimony credited the unsafe lane changes.
Was the post‑stop detention and canine sniff an unlawful prolonged seizure?	Totality of circumstances (air freshener odor, nervousness, rental short‑term from NY to Binghamton, inconsistent statements, prior arrest) gave reasonable suspicion to detain and call K9.	Detention exceeded investigatory purpose (over an hour), exposed Freeman to cold without jacket, and lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause.	Detention was supported by reasonable suspicion; duration reasonable given rural location and time to summon K9; offers to mitigate weather were made.

Commonwealth v. Ranson, 103 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for suppression and categorization of encounters)
Commonwealth v. Gleason, 785 A.2d 983 (Pa. 2001) (probable cause required where stop cannot serve investigatory purpose)
Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2010) (probable cause standard for non‑investigative vehicle detentions)
Commonwealth v. Cook, 865 A.2d 869 (Pa. Super. 2004) (safety of lane changes relevant to Vehicle Code violation justification)
Commonwealth v. Kemp, 961 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2008) (totality of circumstances — air fresheners, rental vehicle, nervousness — can create reasonable suspicion)
Commonwealth v. Rogers, 849 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 2004) (reasonable suspicion assessed by totality of circumstances and officer inferences)
Commonwealth v. Ellis, 662 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 1995) (officer diligence in pursuing investigation supports brief detentions)
United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (U.S. 1985) (duration of detention measured against diligence in pursuing investigation)
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1983) (analysis of investigative detention length and means to confirm/dispel suspicion)