Commonwealth v. Randolph
151 A.3d 170
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- On March 7, 2013, Trooper Corporal Brett Hanlon stopped Jason Randolph’s minivan on I‑80 for illegal window tint and an unreadable plate; Randolph was the registered owner.
- After returning Randolph’s documents and issuing a written warning, Hanlon told Randolph he was free to leave but then asked additional questions; Randolph consented to a vehicle search.
- A K‑9 (Draco) sniffed the vehicle but gave no positive alert; officers found multiple cell phones, no luggage, removed rear seats, and discovered a welded steel box under the passenger floor.
- Hanlon impounded the van, obtained a warrant to open the locked hidden compartment, and inside found cocaine and a digital scale.
- Randolph moved to suppress the evidence; the suppression court denied the motion, he was convicted, and appealed. The Superior Court upheld voluntariness of consent but held the warrant affidavit lacked probable cause and vacated the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Randolph) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Hanlon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Randolph’s consent to search voluntary or the product of coercion? | Consent was tainted because officers re‑initiated questioning after saying he was free to leave; thus consent was involuntary. | The stop had become a mere encounter once Randolph was told he was free to go; further questioning and consent were voluntary. | Consent was voluntary; the interaction was a mere encounter and not coercive. |
| Did the warrant affidavit establish probable cause to search the welded under‑vehicle box? | Affidavit failed to show a fair probability contraband would be in the box—facts were suspicious but insufficient. | The totality of circumstances (no seats/luggage, multiple cellphones, inconsistent travel stories, welded hidden compartment) gave probable cause. | Affidavit did not establish probable cause: officer’s bare assertion of “training and experience” about hidden compartments (and lack of K‑9 alert) was insufficient. Warrant invalid. |
| Did Randolph’s verbal consent permit opening the locked, concealed compartment without a warrant? | Verbal consent did not encompass forced opening of a locked, concealed compartment that required significant disassembly to access. | General consent to search the vehicle allowed searching containers found inside. | Consent did not reasonably extend to breaking open and accessing a locked, concealed welded compartment; warrant required. |
| Should the appeal be quashed as premature due to Commonwealth’s post‑sentence motion to modify? | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Appeal treated as timely under Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5); motion to quash denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884 (Pa. 2000) (totality‑of‑circumstances factors govern whether post‑stop questioning is a mere encounter and whether consent is voluntary)
- Commonwealth v. Freeman, 757 A.2d 903 (Pa. 2000) (continued questioning after admonition one is free to leave can create unlawful detention that taints consent)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (established the totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for probable cause in warrant affidavits)
- Commonwealth v. Torres, 764 A.2d 532 (Pa. 2001) (reviewing courts must ensure magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009) (officer’s training/experience must be tied to facts—cannot be mere conclusory assertion—to support probable cause)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1991) (limits of general consent: consent to search vehicle does not necessarily include breaking open locked containers)
- Commonwealth v. Yedinak, 676 A.2d 1217 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996) (general consent to search vehicle extends to closed but readily opened containers found inside)