152 A.3d 309
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- Parker signed probation regulations after pleading guilty to fleeing/attempting to elude and was subject to unannounced home visits and warrantless searches upon reasonable suspicion.
- SIU probation officers conducted an unannounced home visit, entered the residence, and observed drug paraphernalia, a shotgun, ammunition, knives, a digital scale, and other items in plain view.
- Officers handcuffed Parker, obtained supervisor approval, called the Drug Task Force (DTF); DTF agents responded but declined to pursue charges or a warrant and left.
- After DTF left, probation officers searched the bedroom refrigerator (with prior supervisory approval) and found ~7.4 grams of cocaine; DTF later filed criminal charges.
- Trial court denied suppression of the plain-view items but suppressed the cocaine found in the refrigerator; Commonwealth appealed.
- Superior Court affirmed suppression denial for plain-view items, reversed suppression of the cocaine, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Parker's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probation officers had reasonable suspicion to search the residence after seeing items in plain view | Plain-view observations of paraphernalia, firearm, ammunition and knives constituted probation violations and gave reasonable suspicion to search; officers obtained supervisor approval | Search exceeded scope once probation violations discovered, officers became "stalking horses" for police, and could not search for new crimes after DTF declined to pursue charges | Probation officers had reasonable suspicion from plain-view items and validly obtained supervisor approval; search of refrigerator was lawful |
| Whether involvement of DTF converted probation search into an improper police search ("stalking horse") | No evidence of prior agreement or coordinated plan with DTF; contacting police is routine and does not negate probation officers’ authority | Probation officers effectively switched hats to assist police and continued searching for evidence of new crimes after DTF declined to proceed | No stalking-horse relationship shown; interaction with DTF was not an express/tacit agreement to circumvent warrant requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Goldsborough, 31 A.3d 299 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard of review on suppression appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 55 A.3d 1208 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (probation/parole purpose and reduced expectation of privacy)
- Commonwealth v. Moore, 805 A.2d 616 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (probationers have diminished Fourth Amendment rights)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 85 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (parole/probation home visit, plain-view observation, and reasonable suspicion for search)
- Commonwealth v. E. Williams, 692 A.2d 1031 (Pa.) (signing search condition acknowledges probation officer’s right to reasonable searches)
- Commonwealth v. Curry, 900 A.2d 390 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (plain-view probation violations supported residential search)
- Commonwealth v. Altadonna, 817 A.2d 1145 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (stalking-horse doctrine analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 361 A.2d 846 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (parole officer acting as stalking horse invalidated search)
- Knights v. United States, 534 U.S. 112 (U.S. Supreme Court) (probation searches evaluated under ordinary Fourth Amendment analysis)
- United States v. S. Williams, 417 F.3d 373 (3d Cir.) (stalking-horse framework: examine whether probation officer aided police to evade warrant/probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 836 A.2d 893 (Pa.) (state constitution offers no greater protection than federal law for parole searches)