Commonwealth v. Harris, 176 A.3d 1009

Background

Police received a tip from a confidential informant (CI) that a black male driving a white sedan would sell crack at a Euclid Avenue residence and then return to Jeannette; the CI had provided useful information in prior matters.
The CI and Officer McNamara agreed a hang-up call to dispatch would signal the sale was done and the seller was leaving.
Within ~30 seconds of the hang-up call, Officer McNamara observed a white sedan leaving Euclid Avenue driven by a black male, followed it, and stopped it for heavily tinted windows in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4524(e).
During the stop McNamara asked questions, asked the driver (Appellee Harris) to exit; Harris twice refused and was physically removed and handcuffed while awaiting a K-9 unit (~15 minutes later).
The K-9 alerted to the vehicle; a search produced a handgun (later identified as stolen), money, phones, and an Altoids tin; Harris was arrested and a search incident to arrest yielded crack inside his boxer briefs.
The suppression court granted Harris's motion to suppress, concluding the CI tip and corroboration were insufficient to establish probable cause and that the window-tint stop was a pretext to investigate drugs. The Commonwealth appealed and the Superior Court reversed.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Harris's Argument	Held
Validity of traffic stop for illegal window tint	Stop was lawful: officer observed a §4524(e) violation and had probable cause to stop	Stop was pretextual and therefore invalid	Stop was lawful; objective observation of the tint violation authorized the stop regardless of motive (Chase/Whren)
Authority to question and remove driver; handcuffing	Officer may ask routine questions, order driver out, and handcuff for officer safety during an investigative stop	Ordering out, forceful removal, and handcuffing exceeded scope and converted stop to arrest without probable cause	Officer could ask questions, order driver out, and handcuff pending investigation; detention was an investigative stop supported by reasonable suspicion
Reasonable suspicion to continue detention and deploy K-9	Totality (reliable CI history, prearranged hang-up signal, rapid corroboration, driver’s answers and refusal to exit) supplied reasonable suspicion for K-9 sniff	CI tip was too vague and lacked established basis of knowledge; corroboration was insufficient	Reasonable suspicion existed to detain and conduct a canine sniff under the totality of circumstances
Probable cause after K-9 alert to search vehicle and arrest	K-9 alert plus prior facts gave probable cause to search the car and arrest when contraband and a gun were found	Warrantless search/arrest invalid without magistrate review given CI-based genesis	K-9 alert and surrounding facts furnished probable cause for a warrantless automobile search and for arrest; suppression was erroneous

Key Cases Cited

In re O.A., 717 A.2d 490 (Pa. 1998) (discusses limits on CI-based probable cause absent corroboration)
Commonwealth v. Stokes, 389 A.2d 74 (Pa. 1978) (informant hearsay without first-hand basis insufficient for probable cause)
Commonwealth v. Clark, 28 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2011) (CI tip can support probable cause when corroborated or when informant reliability/basis shown)
Commonwealth v. Chase, 960 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2008) (traffic-code violations justify stops; officer motive irrelevant under Fourth Amendment)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (pretextual traffic stops are permitted if the stop is supported by an objective traffic-law violation)
Commonwealth v. Rogers, 849 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 2004) (canine sniff of a vehicle’s exterior requires only reasonable suspicion)
Commonwealth v. Luv, 735 A.2d 87 (Pa. 1999) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) (automobile exception to the warrant requirement recognized under Pennsylvania law)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (officers may ask moderate, routine questions during traffic stops)