Commonwealth v. Miller
56 A.3d 424
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant was convicted by jury of DUI, careless driving, reckless driving, accidental damage to unattended vehicle or property, and duties at a stop sign.
- Appellant challenged the denial of his suppression motion as to three beer bottles seized from his Chevrolet Blazer without a warrant.
- Officer Dever observed the Blazer’s erratic driving, failure to stop at a stop sign, and ultimately stopped the vehicle.
- Upon contact, the officer detected alcohol odor, observed a Heineken bottle in the front console, and noted other bottles after retrieving the first.
- Appellant was arrested for DUI; a search of his person revealed a prescription bottle with oxycodone; the officer then retrieved the beer bottles from the vehicle.
- The suppression court partially granted suppression as to statements but denied suppression of the beer bottles; the appellate court upheld the beer-bottle seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plain view and limited automobile exceptions justified the seizure | Brown/Liddie apply; beer bottles were in plain view | No valid plain-view or automobile exception; warrant needed | Yes; plain view and limited automobile exception apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2011) (analyzed plain view and automobile exception under PA law)
- Commonwealth v. Liddie, 21 A.3d 229 (Pa. Super. 2011) (plain view and automobile-access discussions in PA en banc context)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 982 A.2d 90 (Pa. Super. 2009) (test for incriminating nature under plain view doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Guzman, 44 A.3d 688 (Pa. Super. 2012) (limited automobile exception applicable when no warrant possible)
- Commonwealth v. McCree, 592 Pa. 238, 924 A.2d 621 (2007) (plurality on automobile search framework)