Commonwealth v. McAdoo
46 A.3d 781
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Police received a tip that a homicide victim was buried behind Hall Manor and that the killer had escaped a halfway house.
- Officers canvassed the woods behind Hall Manor, an area with known drug activity and violence, and encountered Appellant standing alone.
- Appellant identified himself; officers checked his name for a warrant while explaining they were canvassing the area.
- Because Appellant’s hands could not be seen and for officer safety, one officer conducted a frisk and felt a hard object in a bag but did not seize it at that time.
- A warrant check later revealed an arrest warrant for a parole violation; Appellant was arrested and searched incident to arrest.
- Search incident to arrest yielded cocaine, marijuana, cell phones, a razor blade, and currency; suppression motion was denied at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suppression court erred in denying suppression of physical evidence | McAdoo | State | Affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hoppert, 39 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for reviewing suppression orders)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (plea on suppression standards)
- Commonwealth v. Au, 986 A.2d 864 (Pa. Super. 2009) (en banc; officer request for identification as investigative detention scenario)
- Commonwealth v. Au, 42 A.3d 1002 (Pa. 2012) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopts Judge Shogan’s dissent view on identification requests)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (interrogation about identity does not per se violate Fourth Amendment)