Commonwealth v. Green
168 A.3d 180
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Trooper Mark Conrad stopped Levi A. Green on August 4, 2014 for speeding (62 mph in a 45 mph zone) on SR-115 in Luzerne County. Trooper Conrad handled a certified drug-detection canine (Astor).
- At the stop Green, the sole occupant, appeared unusually nervous; the vehicle was registered to an absent third party; Green said he was returning from Philadelphia; a records check revealed Green had a lengthy criminal history including drug offenses.
- Trooper Conrad knew Green and the tan Dodge from prior stops: one earlier contact yielded recovered cocaine and marijuana hidden in an engine compartment, and another yielded a hypodermic needle in the vehicle.
- Trooper Conrad asked to search the car; Green refused. Trooper Conrad then deployed Astor, who alerted to narcotics odor on both sides of the vehicle; a subsequent search of the engine compartment produced 525 packets of heroin.
- Green moved to suppress, claiming the post-stop detention, the canine sniff, and the warrantless search lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Trial court denied suppression; jury convicted Green of PWID, possession, and paraphernalia. Green appealed; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Green's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trooper Conrad exceeded scope of traffic stop by detaining Green without reasonable suspicion | Post-stop questioning and continued detention were unrelated to speeding and lacked reasonable suspicion | Post-stop detention was supported by articulable facts giving reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking | Court held detention was supported by reasonable suspicion based on nervousness, third-party registration, travel from Philadelphia, criminal history, and prior contacts |
| Whether canine sniff after stop required independent reasonable suspicion | Canine sniff was an unlawful investigative measure following the traffic stop | Canine sniff was permissible because officer had reasonable suspicion that narcotics were present | Court held officer had reasonable suspicion to deploy the dog (PA law requires reasonable suspicion for canine sniff) |
| Whether dog alert furnished probable cause for warrantless vehicle search | Dog alert alone (from an allegedly unlawful sniff) did not establish probable cause | Dog alert, combined with officer experience and surrounding facts, provided probable cause for an automobile search under the automobile exception | Court held the dog’s alert plus officer’s knowledge met probable cause for a warrantless search |
| Whether evidence should be suppressed because any of the above steps were illegal | All subsequent searches and seizures flowed from an illegal detention and sniff | Even excluding the initial speeding stop (which was lawful), each subsequent act met the constitutional standard (reasonable suspicion/probable cause) | Court affirmed denial of suppression and conviction; evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review for suppression rulings: factual findings binding if supported; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Basinger, 982 A.2d 121 (Pa. Super. 2009) (reasonable-suspicion framework for investigative detentions)
- Commonwealth v. Dales, 820 A.2d 807 (Pa. Super. 2003) (officer’s hunch based on nervousness and vague odors insufficient for extended detention)
- Commonwealth v. Rogers, 849 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 2004) (canine sniff is a search under PA law; reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, suffices to conduct canine sniff of place)
- Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) (Pennsylvania adopts federal automobile exception; probable cause permits warrantless vehicle searches)
- Commonwealth v. Luv, 735 A.2d 87 (Pa. 1999) (probable cause assessed under totality-of-the-circumstances test)