Commonwealth v. Irvin
134 A.3d 67
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Police received multiple neighbor complaints of frequent drug activity at Co-Defendant’s residence and identified a tall, thin black male (Appellant) as a frequent guest. Detective Temple confirmed Co-Defendant’s prior paraphernalia convictions.
- On scheduled trash day Temple retrieved trash cans placed in an alley behind the house and found partial marijuana cigars, a tied sandwich bag consistent with distribution packaging, and three receipts bearing Appellant’s name.
- Temple applied for and obtained a search warrant (face sheet misnamed Appellant as “Benjamin”; affidavit correctly identified him) and during execution Appellant attempted to flush two bags of heroin down a toilet and was detained.
- A search incident to arrest uncovered $2,570 (mostly in rubber-banded bundles similar to those used on heroin bundles) and other indicia (ringing phone). A second warrant for PWID was obtained and execution revealed a safe containing six bundles (60 bags) of heroin in a bedroom with Appellant’s personal items nearby; Appellant knew the combination and admitted he could open it.
- Appellant was convicted (PWID, paraphernalia, conspiracy, tampering). He moved to suppress (challenging trash pull, warrant errors, and scope of safe search) and raised sufficiency issues; the suppression court denied relief and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Irvin's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Warrantless trash search (curtilage/expectation of privacy) | Trash was within curtilage; warrantless pull violated Fourth Amendment | Trash cans were placed at alley edge publicly accessible; no reasonable expectation of privacy | Court: Trash was publicly accessible; warrantless search lawful and suppression denied |
| 2. Warrant defects (misnaming and wrong day) | Misstated first name and day undermined particularity/probable cause; warrants invalid | Overall application and affidavit supplied particular and probable cause; errors were immaterial | Court: Errors immaterial; affidavit provided sufficient nexus and probable cause; warrants valid |
| 3. Scope of second warrant / search of safe | Safe search exceeded warrant scope (derivative of defective warrants) | Second warrant (and observations during execution) authorized search of containers where heroin/funds could be secreted | Court: Issue waived by Irvin at suppression hearing; alternatively, safe search within warrant scope; contents admissible |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and PWID | Evidence insufficient: no exclusive access, no heroin on person, no observed sales | Circumstantial evidence (attempt to flush heroin, large rubber-banded cash, knowledge of safe combo, destroyed phone, co-defendant’s testimony and expert on intent to deliver) establishes agreement and intent | Court: Evidence sufficient to support conspiracy (thus affirming convictions); constructive possession argument unnecessary but would also fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lagenella, 83 A.3d 94 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review for suppression findings)
- Commonwealth v. James, 69 A.3d 180 (Pa. 2013) (magistrate need not anticipate constitutional challenges to how affidavit information was acquired)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2009) (curtilage and expectation of privacy principles)
- Commonwealth v. Perdue, 564 A.2d 489 (Pa. Super. 1990) (no expectation of privacy in trash placed in publicly accessible area)
- Commonwealth v. Lawley, 741 A.2d 205 (Pa. Super. 1999) (similar holding on trash outside residence)
- Commonwealth v. Carlisle, 534 A.2d 469 (Pa. 1987) (practical, common-sense particularity requirement for warrants)
- Commonwealth v. Grossman, 555 A.2d 896 (Pa. 1989) (Article I, §8 particularity discussion)
- Commonwealth v. Waltson, 724 A.2d 289 (Pa. 1998) (scope of warrant includes containers where objects may be secreted)
- Commonwealth v. Belenky, 777 A.2d 483 (Pa. Super. 2001) (warrant errors require reversal only if they hamper magistrate’s assessment of probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2005) (circumstantial evidence and factors supporting conspiratorial agreement)
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 931 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. 2007) (conspiracy proof may rest on circumstantial evidence)