Commonwealth v. Loughnane
173 A.3d 733
Pa.2017Background
- Late-night hit-and-run killed Rebecca McCallick; witness Schenck identified a dark truck as the vehicle involved.
- Police located a truck at Loughnane’s residence parked in the driveway; Schenck’s father photographed it and identified it to police.
- Detective Sobocinski arrived at Loughnane’s home, could not find Loughnane, left the truck unattended, and later seized and towed the truck without a warrant, citing mobility and potential weather-related loss of evidence.
- Police obtained a search warrant four days later; the search produced no forensic evidence, but Schenck later identified the truck by sight and sound at the station.
- Suppression court suppressed evidence, finding no exigent circumstances for the warrantless seizure from curtilage; the Superior Court reversed, holding (1) a driveway can never be curtilage and (2) the automobile exception (Commonwealth v. Gary) allowed the seizure.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and held Gary does not authorize warrantless seizure of a vehicle parked on a defendant’s residential driveway; case vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal automobile exception permits warrantless seizure of a vehicle on a private residential driveway | Gary’s automobile exception eliminates a separate exigency requirement; mobility alone justifies seizure | Automobile exception inapplicable to vehicles on residential driveways; seizure requires probable cause plus exigent circumstances | Automobile exception does not apply to a vehicle parked on a defendant’s residential driveway; both probable cause and exigent circumstances are required |
| Whether Loughnane had no expectation of privacy in his vehicle’s appearance/sound while parked at home | Police can use lawful public vantage to identify vehicle; appearance/sound not protected | Seizure of property from curtilage triggers constitutional protections; post-seizure identification is fruit of illegal seizure | Rejected Commonwealth’s argument; entering curtilage and seizing property without warrant implicates Article I, §8 protections |
| Whether a driveway can never be curtilage | Commonwealth argued driveway was not curtilage (in Superior Court) | Loughnane argued driveway may be curtilage depending on factors; Commonwealth had conceded curtilage below | Superior Court’s per se rule that driveways are never curtilage was erroneous; curtilage is fact-specific multi-factor inquiry |
| Proper scope of review/remand | Commonwealth asked Superior Court to find exigent circumstances | Loughnane sought suppression; Supreme Court review limited to whether automobile exception applies to driveway seizures | Matter remanded to Superior Court to evaluate probable cause and any exigent circumstances consistent with this opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gary, 625 Pa. 183, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014) (adopted federal automobile exception in Pennsylvania)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (automobile exception inapplicable to seizure of parked vehicle on private property absent exigency)
- California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985) (automobile exception applies when vehicle is in a public place or readily used on public highways)
- Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (1999) (automobile exception requires probable cause; no separate exigency requirement for vehicles in public)
- Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970) (vehicle mobility creates potential exigency; immediate search justified on highways)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles due to public travel and regulation)