Commonwealth v. Glass
200 A.3d 477
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Detectives used a confidential informant (CI) who identified Cedric Glass (aka "Country") as a cocaine seller, provided his phone number and vehicle description, and was "consensualized" by a deputy district attorney to allow interception of communications.
- The CI arranged and executed a $100 controlled buy from Glass on April 20, 2016 while wearing a Sur‑Tec device (audio recorder with location-tracking for CI safety); detectives observed the transaction and recovered suspected cocaine from the CI.
- Officers pursued and arrested Glass after a vehicle chase and crash; a search incident to arrest produced cash, marijuana on Glass, and in the vehicle the phone used to contact the CI and packaging similar to that used for the cocaine sale.
- Glass moved to suppress evidence obtained from (1) the consensual electronic interception and (2) the Sur‑Tec device’s tracking/recording and (3) the warrantless vehicle search; the suppression court denied relief and Glass was convicted at bench trial of delivery, possession with intent to deliver, possession of marijuana, paraphernalia, criminal use of communication facility, and eluding.
- On appeal Glass raised multiple challenges: adequacy/voluntariness of CI consent and the Memorandum of Approval under the Wiretap Act, application of the mobile tracking-device statute (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5761) and Jones/Burgos analogies, constitutionality of interception inside a vehicle, legality of the vehicle search, and sufficiency/weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Glass) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| A: Validity of consensual interception under Wiretap Act §5704(2)(ii) | DDA reviewed facts, personally consensualized CI (by phone), approved interception; officers articulated reasonable grounds | Memorandum lacked written articulation of reasonable grounds, was defective (template, misdated, unsigned), consent involuntary | Interception lawful: statute does not require written reasonable‑grounds in memo; DDA personally reviewed facts and consensualized CI by phone; CLARK distinguished and Blystone/precedent support consensual monitoring |
| B: Use of Sur‑Tec device (audio + GPS) and §5761 mobile tracking requirements | Device was primarily an audio recorder placed on CI by consent; GPS used only for CI safety and did not "only" track movement | Dual capabilities require §5761 warrant/order; Jones/Burgos require probable cause for tracking | §5702 defines a "tracking device" as permitting only tracking movement; Sur‑Tec was not such a device and was consensual on CI, so §5761 inapplicable; Burgos (vehicle‑GPS) distinguishes facts |
| C: Warrantless search of vehicle | Probable cause existed under automobile exception based on controlled buy, observed transaction, flight, and contraband on arrest | No probable cause; search unreasonable absent warrant | Search upheld: totality of circumstances provided probable cause to search vehicle under automobile exception (Gary standard) |
| D/E: Weight and sufficiency of evidence for delivery/PWID | Intercepted communications, controlled buy, CI recovered cocaine, corroborating physical evidence and flight supported convictions | Intercept problematic; no direct exchange observed, buy money not found on Glass; without intercepted evidence convictions unsupported | Convictions affirmed: suppression claims fail so weight/sufficiency challenges fail; trial court reasonably credited evidence and permissibly relied on circumstantial proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation)
- Commonwealth v. Blystone, 549 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1988) (upheld warrantless consensual monitoring by CI; no privacy expectation once confidence disclosed to informant)
- Commonwealth v. Burgos, 64 A.3d 641 (Pa. Super. 2013) (attachment/monitoring of GPS on vehicle constitutes search; probable cause required)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (U.S. 2012) (installation/long‑term use of GPS on vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 542 A.2d 1036 (Pa. Super. 1988) (statutorily designated prosecutor must personally review/consensualize under §5704; non‑delegable duties)
- Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) (adopted federal automobile exception standard for vehicle searches)
- Commonwealth v. McMillan, 13 A.3d 521 (Pa. Super. 2011) (articulation and verification of reasonable grounds required for consensual monitoring under §5704)