Commonwealth v. Luczki
212 A.3d 530
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2019Background
- Officers from a DA task force (DANET) in a high-drug area observed Luczki and a companion walk toward a known housing project and disappear for ~14 minutes; the companion was known to one officer from prior narcotics arrests.
- Officers in plainclothes, wearing badges on necks and on foot, approached as the two returned and said aloud they were police; Luczki and his companion began to walk away.
- As Luczki turned and reached into his front pocket, Officer Luffey observed a white "stamp bag" in Luczki's cupped hand; Luffey (a 22-year veteran experienced in narcotics interdiction) recognized the packaging as narcotics packaging.
- Luffey asked Luczki to open his hand; Luczki complied and revealed three stamp bags marked "No Pain"; the bags later tested positive for heroin.
- Luczki moved to suppress, arguing the officers' identification and statement (“I need to speak with you”) constituted a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion, and that ordering him to open his hand was an unlawful search; the trial court denied suppression, convicted after a stipulated bench trial, and imposed sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officers' approach and statement constituted a seizure (investigatory detention) | Luczki: the badges + “I need to speak with you” would make a reasonable person feel not free to leave, so officers seized him without reasonable suspicion | Commonwealth: initial contact was a mere encounter; officers merely identified themselves and asked to speak | Court: initial contact was a mere encounter — not a seizure — given location, plainclothes, no weapons, no physical restraint, no commanding tone |
| Whether asking Luczki to open his hand was an unlawful search/seizure | Luczki: ordering him to open his hand was a search following an illegal detention; suppression required | Commonwealth: officer saw contraband in plain view; asking him to open his hand was reasonable follow-up and not a warrantless-search violation | Court: plain view applied — officer lawfully observed incriminating item from lawful vantage; asking to open hand was justified to investigate; seizure and arrest after seeing three bags was supported |
| Whether the incriminating nature of the item was "immediately apparent" for plain-view seizure | Luczki: officer only saw something white and speculated it was a stamp bag | Commonwealth: officer’s training and experience made the incriminating nature immediately apparent | Court: credited officer’s uncontradicted testimony; given experience and context, the bags’ incriminating nature was immediately apparent |
| Whether probable cause existed to arrest after viewing the revealed bags | Luczki: no probable cause because initial encounter was unlawful | Commonwealth: seeing three identified stamp bags provided probable cause to arrest for possession | Court: after seeing three bags stamped “No Pain,” probable cause existed to seize and arrest |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Arter, 151 A.3d 149 (Pa. 2016) (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 205 A.3d 1195 (Pa. 2019) (framework for distinguishing mere encounter, investigative detention, custodial arrest; "free to leave" test)
- Commonwealth v. Lyles, 97 A.3d 297 (Pa. 2014) (totality-of-circumstances objective test for seizures; officers may approach and question in public without seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2005) (reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts and reasonable inferences from officer experience)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 777 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2001) (plain view doctrine: incriminating character must be immediately apparent and officer training may be considered)