Commonwealth v. Potts
73 A.3d 1275
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Officers responded to a 911 report of a domestic disturbance at an apartment where loud screaming was heard.
- Officers knocked; the screaming stopped; when the door was opened, a distraught Ms. Young (the appellant’s fiancée) was sweating, crying, breathing heavily, and disheveled.
- From the open doorway officers saw Appellant run into a bedroom and shut the door; officers followed Ms. Young into the living room to check her safety.
- After repeatedly asking, Appellant emerged briefly and appeared nervous, sweating, and shaking; officers conducted a brief entry into the bedroom as a safety check and observed an open suitcase containing a large amount of marijuana.
- Narcotics unit obtained a warrant and later executed a search, seizing multiple controlled substances, scales, large amounts of cash, ID and mail in Appellant’s name; Appellant was charged, moved to suppress, was convicted after a non-jury trial, and appealed the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellant Potts) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ warrantless entry into the apartment was unlawful | Entry was not justified by any exception to the warrant requirement; no valid consent | Entry was justified by the exigent‑circumstances/emergency aid doctrine given screaming and distraught victim | Entry upheld: objectively reasonable to enter to check for persons in need of immediate aid |
| Whether officers’ search of the bedroom (protective sweep) was unlawful because Appellant was not yet arrested | Protective sweep was unlawful absent arrest and probable cause | Protective sweep permitted under Buie/Long where articulable facts show danger to officers/others | Sweep upheld: articulable facts (screaming, distraught victim, appellant’s flight/behavior) justified limited sweep |
| Whether visible contraband observed during sweep must be suppressed | Any evidence discovered during warrantless sweep should be suppressed | If contraband is plainly observed during a lawful protective sweep, it need not be ignored; narcotics unit later obtained a warrant and seized items | Evidence admissible: officers not required to ignore contraband; narcotics unit later secured warrant and seized items |
| Whether officers had consent to enter and search | Officers lacked consent to enter apartment or bedroom | Consent issue moot given lawful emergency entry and protective sweep | Court deemed consent argument moot; suppression denial stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2009) (emergency‑aid exception can justify warrantless entry to a residence)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 742 A.2d 661 (Pa. 1999) (domestic context exigencies may justify limited intrusion)
- Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (2009) (objective‑reasonableness test for entries to render or seek medical assistance)
- Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S.Ct. 987 (2012) (police split‑second judgments in tense, evolving situations factor into reasonableness analysis)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (protective sweep doctrine; two levels of sweep defined)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) (plain view of contraband during lawful protective sweep does not require suppression)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 771 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 2001) (explaining scope of Buie protective sweep in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Farnan, 55 A.3d 113 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings)