Commonwealth v. Miller
56 A.3d 1276
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- PSP investigated a stolen van with a LoJack GPS in Muddy Creek, Delta, PA.
- Troopers located a clearing with trailers; no residences observed; no obvious trespass signs.
- Items in clearing appeared to come from stolen vehicles; Cotton-printed cases found.
- A search warrant for 768 Muddy Creek Road was prepared; warrant executed next day, yielding tools, a stolen vehicle, and a stolen excavator.
- Appellee Miller is charged with chop shop and receiving stolen property; suppression motion denied then appealed by Commonwealth.
- Appellee did not own the property; no evidence of a possessory or privacy interest in the cleared area; trial court granted suppression; Commonwealth appeals.
- Court must determine whether Appellee had standing and a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched area.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched area. | Miller lacked privacy interest; no standing. | Miller had possessory interest or privacy interest via family property. | No reasonable expectation of privacy; standing lacking. |
| Whether the open fields doctrine applies to the wooded clearing. | Open fields doctrine supports search; area open and non-curtilage. | Foreseeable privacy interests deny application. | Open fields doctrine not controlling here; no privacy interest established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chernosky, 874 A.2d 123 (Pa.Super.2005) (controls standards for suppression appeals and factual binding findings)
- Commonwealth v. Gaul, 867 A.2d 557 (Pa.Super.2005) (standards for evaluating suppression decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Bostick, 958 A.2d 543 (Pa.Super.2008) (standing and privacy requirements for suppression claims)
- Commonwealth v. Ferretti, 577 A.2d 1375 (Pa.Super.1990) (legitimate expectation of privacy; not living at premises can negate privacy interest)