Commonwealth v. Martinez
69 A.3d 618
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- On December 8, 2009, state police conducted a search linked to Michelle Tedesco and Appellant, leading to a strip search of Appellant and the recovery of 14.5 grams of heroin from his body.
- The search warrant, supported by probable cause from a confidential informant, targeted Michelle L. Tedesco and the unidentified male passenger in her vehicle, later identified as Appellant.
- A pat-down yielded no heroin; a strip search was then conducted after resistance, with three officers and a taser involved.
- Appellant moved to suppress the evidence; the suppression court denied the motion and later denied reconsideration.
- At a stipulated fact bench trial, Appellant was convicted on PWID, possession of heroin, possession of a small amount of marijuana, and resisting arrest, and was sentenced to not less than five and not more than ten years.
- On appeal, Appellant challenged the suppression ruling; the Superior Court affirmed denial of suppression and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the strip search was authorized by the warrant | Martinez argues the warrant didn't permit a strip search, violating the Fourth Amendment/Article I, §8. | Commonwealth contends the warrant described a specific male passenger and supported a strip search under totality of circumstances. | Denied; search valid under warrant and totality. |
| Whether the warrant nexus sufficed for the person-search | Martinez asserts no nexus to Appellant for a body-search. | Commonwealth argues the affidavit tied Appellant to the vehicle and crime, establishing nexus. | Denied; nexus established; not a universal all-persons search. |
| Whether the strip search was reasonable under Bell and related case law | Martinez claims the intrusion was excessive and not justified. | Commonwealth asserts justified intrusion under probable cause and body-search norms. | Denied; strip search reasonable in scope and manner given the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bleigh, 586 A.2d 450 (Pa. Super. 1991) (scope includes containers when warranted to search the object)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (S. Ct. 1979) (reasonableness balancing for searches of persons after warrant)
- Moore v. State, 7 A.3d 630 (Md. App. 2010) (strip search reasonable when supported by probable cause and warrant)
- Hampton, 60 P.3d 95 (Wash. App. 2002) (special safeguards not needed when warrant for drugs exists)
- Johnson, 547 S.E.2d 445 (N.C. App. 2001) (scope of search justified by state's interest in obtaining evidence)
- Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (S. Ct. 1983) (totality of the circumstances test for probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Gray, 503 A.2d 921 (Pa. 1986) (adopted totality approach for probable cause under Article I, §8)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. Super. 2010) (deference to magistrate’s probable cause determination)
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 880 A.2d 678 (Pa. Super. 2005) (nexus to place described in warrant)
- State v. Hampton, 60 P.3d 95 (Wash. App. 2002) (strip search permissible under proper warrant for drugs)