Commonwealth v. Loughnane
128 A.3d 806
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Early morning July 24, 2012: Rebecca McCallick was struck and killed by a vehicle; eyewitness John Schenck III described a “large, dark colored truck.”
- Hawkeye security operator Peter Sladin reviewed city camera feeds, captured a screenshot of a dark full‑size pickup (claimed time 2:19 a.m.), and gave the photo to police; the original video was later recorded over per routine retention and unavailable.
- On August 8–9, 2012, a truck matching the screenshot was located in a private driveway; police seized the truck without a warrant and later obtained a search warrant and searched it (no trial evidence resulted from the search per note).
- Schenck viewed the photo and later made visual and sound identifications of the seized truck; police also performed a controlled test drive/sound identification.
- Appellee moved in limine / to suppress: (1) still photos from the video (authenticity/best evidence), (2) suppression of truck seizure and identifications, (3) exclusion of the 911 audio, and other related motions. Trial court: excluded Sladin’s testimony re: video authenticity, suppressed the warrantless seizure and identifications, and barred the 911 audio; reserved on inflammatory photos.
- Commonwealth appealed; Superior Court reviewed scope of best‑evidence/authentication, Fourth Amendment seizure issues (post‑Gary), and admissibility of 911 audio.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Loughnane's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of still photo from Hawkeye system (and applicability of Best Evidence Rule) | Sladin (Hawkeye operator who captured screenshot) should be allowed to authenticate photo; best evidence rule does not bar use because original video was lost through routine retention, not bad faith | Photo cannot be authenticated without the original video; time/location discrepancy and missing tape undermine authenticity | Reversed suppression court: Sladin may testify to authenticate the screenshot under Pa.R.E. 901(b)(1) and (9); best evidence rule inapplicable because original was lost through routine practices, not bad faith; time discrepancy is weight issue for trial. |
| Warrantless seizure of truck parked in driveway; admissibility of visual/sound identifications | Seizure justified: driveway offers no reasonable expectation of privacy (plain view); exigent circumstances/mobility of vehicle justified seizure under Gary (probable cause determination remanded) | Truck was on private property; no exigent circumstances to seize without warrant; seizure violated Fourth Amendment/Pa. Const. art. I §8, so identifications are fruit of poisonous tree | Partially reversed: Superior Court holds Gary’s adoption of the federal automobile exception applies to vehicles in driveways (driveway not curtilage), and mere mobility supports exigency; court remanded for suppression court to determine whether probable cause existed at seizure. |
| Admissibility of Schenck’s 911 audio (sounds from victim audible) | Recording is relevant to eyewitness state of mind and the event; probative value supports admission | Audio is inflammatory; sounds from victim risk unfair prejudice and jury passion; transcript suffices | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion excluding audio; probative value outweighed by danger of inflaming jurors and transcript can be used. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) (adopts federal automobile exception: probable cause suffices for warrantless vehicle search/seizure without separate exigency beyond mobility)
- Commonwealth v. Lewis, 623 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 1993) (inadmissibility where original surveillance tape was available but proponent failed to procure it)
- Commonwealth v. Dent, 837 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 2003) (best evidence rule inapplicable where computerized surveillance automatically recycled tape and original was unavailable)
- Commonwealth v. Simmen, 58 A.3d 811 (Pa. Super. 2012) (driveway generally not curtilage; limited expectation of privacy in vehicles parked in plain view)
- Commonwealth v. Groff, 514 A.2d 1382 (Pa. Super. 1986) (framework for admitting inflammatory 911 recordings; balance probative value against prejudicial effect)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017 (Pa. 2012) (trial courts must exclude inflammatory demonstrative evidence when prejudicial effect outweighs essential evidentiary value)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine governing evidence obtained from unlawful invasions)
- Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 370 A.2d 1172 (Pa. 1977) (evidence inadmissible if derived by exploitation of primary illegality; discusses attenuation analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 56 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for Commonwealth appeals from suppression orders)