Commonwealth v. Haynes
116 A.3d 640
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- On Feb. 22, 2012, state troopers surveilled drug activity at Hawksworth Garden Apartments and observed Kristin Weightman conduct multiple suspected hand-to-hand drug transactions. Troopers followed leads identifying the specific apartment she entered.
- Troopers knocked, announced their identity, smelled burning marijuana, then, after occupants became quiet and would not open the door, forcibly entered and found heroin (7.8 grams) in plain view along with money and burnt blunts. Appellant Haynes was among the occupants.
- Haynes was tried by jury, convicted of multiple drug and related offenses (including possession with intent to deliver and corrupt organizations), and sentenced to 12–30 years with a mandatory minimum tied to drug weight; the jury was not asked to determine drug weight.
- Haynes moved to suppress the evidence from the warrantless entry and raised the Pennsylvania constitutional argument that police created exigent circumstances by knocking rather than obtaining a warrant; that motion was denied.
- On appeal Haynes raised suppression, dismissal, Alleyne-related mandatory-minimum error, and sufficiency as to hindering apprehension; the Superior Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing but affirmed the convictions and suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of warrantless entry / suppression (Art. I, § 8) | Police created exigency by knocking instead of obtaining a warrant; PA Constitution affords greater protection than the Fourth Amendment (citing Demshock/Waddell) | Police had observed drug sales, smelled marijuana, heard movement, announced themselves, and then entry was justified by exigent circumstances (and King supports that announcing does not preclude exigency) | Entry did not violate PA Constitution under facts; police did not create exigency and seizure in plain view was lawful; suppression denied |
| Whether standing/expecation of privacy exists for a visitor | Haynes argued he had privacy interest as a guest | Commonwealth argued Haynes lacked expectation of privacy (raised at appellate stage) | Haynes has expectation of privacy as a houseguest under Arnold; standing exists |
| Mandatory minimum sentence based on drug weight (Alleyne) | Mandatory minimum violated Alleyne because drug-weight fact increasing mandatory minimum was not found by jury beyond reasonable doubt | Commonwealth relied on existing mandatory scheme | Court held Alleyne requires resentencing relief; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing |
| Sufficiency of evidence for hindering apprehension (harboring fugitive) | Haynes argued lack of intent; he told Dudek to turn herself in and only she stayed one night | Commonwealth: permitting a known fugitive to stay is sufficient to show harboring despite later advice to surrender | Viewing evidence in favor of Commonwealth, sufficient evidence supported conviction for harboring; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Demshock, 854 A.2d 553 (Pa. Super. 2004) (warrantless entry where officers did not identify themselves or announce and where exigency arguably created by police)
- Commonwealth v. Waddell, 61 A.3d 198 (Pa. Super. 2012) (suppression warranted where police-created exigency via knock-and-announce)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (U.S. Supreme Court: knocking and announcing does not automatically preclude exigent-circumstances justification for warrantless entry)
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 637 A.2d 251 (Pa. 1993) (PA Supreme Court: forcible entry without exigency violates Article I, § 8)
- Commonwealth v. Melendez, 676 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1996) (warrantless entry illegal where police-created exigency used to justify entry)
- Commonwealth v. Arnold, 932 A.2d 143 (Pa. Super. 2006) (a visitor/houseguest has a reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum are elements that must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 105 A.3d 748 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussion of mandatory drug-sentence scheme post-Alleyne)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478 (Pa. Super. 2014) (defendant entitled to resentencing where jury did not determine drug weight)