Commonwealth v. Johnson
68 A.3d 930
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Officers received anonymous tips that drugs were sold from Unit 97-A, 1313 Gibson Road, in a Bucks County trailer park; informant described an older white female with red hair involved in transactions.
- Officers approached the trailer in plain clothes with badges, detected a strong odor of burnt marijuana from Unit 97-A, and decided to knock rather than leave to obtain a warrant.
- Johnson opened the door in the threshold area; he resisted when officers tried to secure the residence to prevent destruction of evidence, leading to a brief struggle and his arrest.
- A protective sweep of the trailer occurred after Johnson’s arrest; officers observed a burning marijuana cigarette in plain view, and remained to secure the premises pending a warrant.
- Johnson provided a written statement after Miranda warnings at the police station; a search warrant was issued about four hours after the incident began.
- The trial court suppressed the trailer evidence and statements; on appeal, the Commonwealth challenged the suppression, arguing exigent circumstances and probable cause supported a warrantless entry and seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances supported warrantless entry and seizure | Johnson | Johnson argued no exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry | Yes; exigent circumstances supported the entry and seizure |
| Whether the entry and restraint were justified by probable cause | Commonwealth | Johnson contends no sufficient probable cause existed without a warrant | Yes; odor of burnt marijuana plus observed smoke constituted probable cause to secure premises and obtain a warrant |
| Whether the protective sweep and securing Johnson was lawful | Commonwealth | Johnson argues no lawful basis to seize or search absent a warrant | Yes; protective sweep was permissible under exigent circumstances and probable cause |
| Whether post-arrest statements were fruit of the poisonous tree | Commonwealth | Statements were fruit of unlawful arrest | No; arrest was lawful, Miranda warnings were given, so statements were admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bostick, 958 A.2d 543 (Pa. Super. 2008) (exigent circumstances support a warrantless entry when needed to secure premises)
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 637 A.2d 251 (Pa. 1993) (police cannot rely on exigency to excuse warrantless entry absent imminent destruction of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Roland, 637 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1994) (underage drinking not a grave offense justifying warrantless entry)
- Commonwealth v. Melendez, 676 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1995) (police cannot rely on created exigency to justify warrantless entry)
- Commonwealth v. Gillespie, 821 A.2d 1221 (Pa. 2003) (securing premises after defendant demanded warrant is legitimate if tied to safety)
- Commonwealth v. Demshock, 854 A.2d 553 (Pa. Super. 2004) (cannot rely on police-created exigency to justify entry; seek warrant)
- Commonwealth v. Dommel, 885 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2005) (exigency justified arrest for DUI where evidence could be lost)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 836 A.2d 978 (Pa. Super. 2003) (exigent circumstances established due to ongoing narcotics activity and danger of evidence destruction)
- Commonwealth v. Waddell, 61 A.3d 198 (Pa. Super. 2012) (probable cause but no exigent circumstances where evidence not shown to be destroyed imminently)
- Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011) (police-created exigency and reasonableness of warrantless entry under certain conditions)
- McArthur v. United States, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) (brief seizure to secure premises pending warrant is permissible under exigent circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2009) (porch/curtilage determination for Fourth Amendment protection)