Commonwealth v. Moore
11 A.3d 538
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- Moore was observed inside an abandoned house by patrol officer on routine duty at 4925 Olive Street.
- Upon approach Moore exited and a large lump in his mouth was visible, described as narcotics packaging.
- Officers seized a baggie from Moore’s mouth and arrested him for PWID.
- Moore was convicted of PWID after a non-jury trial and sentenced to 3–6 years’ imprisonment.
- Moore timely appealed challenging the denial of his pre-trial motion to suppress; the trial court’s ruling was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seizure or mere encounter | Moore was seized when asked to step out. | Interaction was a mere encounter not requiring suspicion. | Interaction was a mere encounter, not a seizure. |
| Legal standard for suppression review | Appellate review should consider all uncontradicted facts. | Standard allows reversal only for erroneous factual inferences. | Court applied correct suppression-standard framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hoopes, 722 A.2d 172 (Pa.Super.1998) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; factual findings accepted if supported by evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 705 A.2d 887 (Pa.Super.1997) (mere encounter vs seizure with voluntary exit from venue)
- In the Interest of D.M., 781 A.2d 1161 (Pa.2001) (non-seizure proper when initial approach was for talk, not coercive action)
- Commonwealth v. Conte, 931 A.2d 690 (Pa.Super.2007) (police duty to protect and assist may justify contact without suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 950 A.2d 1041 (Pa.Super.2008) (reasonable person perceives officer aid, not detention)