Commonwealth v. Perel
107 A.3d 185
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- On April 21, 2011 police responded to an armed robbery report; victim Holcomb identified Delano Perel as the robber and said Perel carried a small brown leather shaving kit containing a handgun.
- Officers located Perel at a Sheetz; after detaining and searching him they found marijuana and cash on his person and arrested him.
- Perel’s girlfriend, Tony (Toni) Smith, consented in writing to a search of her apartment; officers entered, saw a closed brown shaving kit on the foot of the bed, opened it, and found a handgun, ammunition, and drugs; luggage nearby contained Perel’s receipt and clothing.
- Perel moved to suppress the search of his shaving kit and luggage as warrantless and beyond Smith’s authority; the trial court denied the motion.
- Perel was convicted (jury verdict on persons not to possess a firearm) and pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver; he appealed the denial of suppression.
- The Superior Court vacated Perel’s sentence, ordered suppression of the evidence seized from the closed containers, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Perel) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Perel had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his closed shaving kit and luggage | Perel: the kit/luggage were closed, opaque, in girlfriend’s bedroom, and not shared — thus subjective and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy | Commonwealth: containers were present in the girlfriend’s home and visible during a consensual search of her apartment, so no protected privacy or at least search was justified | Held: Perel had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the closed containers; containers merit robust protection |
| Whether Smith had actual authority to consent to a search of Perel’s closed containers | Perel: Smith denied knowledge of contents and there was no evidence of joint access or mutual use, so she lacked actual authority | Commonwealth: Smith was the lessee and gave written consent to search the apartment (which included items described), so her consent authorized the search | Held: Smith lacked actual authority to consent to search Perel’s closed personal containers |
| Whether police reasonably (objectively) believed Smith had apparent authority to consent | Perel: facts known to officers (victim identified Perel as carrying the kit into Smith’s building; Smith denied knowledge) made belief unreasonable | Commonwealth: consent form listed the kit and items sought; officers had victim ID and were lawfully in the apartment — apparent authority was reasonable | Held: It was unreasonable for officers to believe Smith had authority over Perel’s closed containers; apparent-authority exception does not apply |
| Whether the inevitable discovery doctrine renders the tainted evidence admissible | Commonwealth/Dissent: police had probable cause and were in the process of obtaining a warrant, so the evidence would inevitably have been discovered | Perel/Majority: under Pennsylvania precedent prosecution must show an independent lawful source and not merely that police could have obtained a warrant; record does not show inevitable discovery | Held: Inevitable discovery does not apply; evidence must be suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishes subjective + objective expectation of privacy test)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Fourth Amendment rights are personal; challenger must show own privacy interest)
- Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (third-party consent valid only when person has common authority)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (apparent authority exception: reasonable belief that third party had authority)
- Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (physical manipulation/search of closed passenger bag violated Fourth Amendment)
- New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (searches of closed containers implicate protected privacy interests)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (protection for closed containers)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (plain-view seizure prerequisites and container issues)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable discovery doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Berkheimer, 57 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. en banc — probable cause to obtain a warrant does not cure an illegal search absent a truly independent source)
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 637 A.2d 251 (Pa. 1993) (Pennsylvania heightened protection for warrant requirement; independent-source/inevitable discovery limits)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (privacy interests in closed containers)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (third-party consent vs. privacy in containers)
- Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (importance of neutral magistrate in warrant issuance; police cannot substitute their judgment)