Commonwealth v. Reed
19 A.3d 1163
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- June 22, 2009: officer stops car for red-light violation; driver, with an outstanding warrant, is arrested; Appellant is a passenger.
- Driver provides a name; police discover narcotics and paraphernalia on driver.
- Appellant provides a false name, then reveals his real name; no warrant for Appellant.
- Officer conducts a protective frisk, finding a loaded 9 mm pistol on Appellant.
- Search at police station reveals three narcotics residue-laden straws; vehicle search yields small marijuana bag.
- Appellant moves to suppress evidence and statements; suppression denied after hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression was proper regarding identification request | Reed argues Fifth Amendment violation. | Commonwealth contends Campbell allows ID request as passenger. | No Fifth Amendment violation; identification request permissible. |
| Whether there was an unlawful investigative detention | Au-based claim shows detention lacked reasonable suspicion. | Campbell controls; stop and request for ID valid. | Detention supported by traffic-stop context; no violation. |
| Whether the frisk of Appellant was permissible | Frisk violated Fourth Amendment; no armed/dangerous basis. | Totality of circumstances supported belief Appellant armed/dangerous. | Frisk reasonable; supported by totality of circumstances. |
| Whether the in limine ruling precluding jury argument on constitutional violations was proper | Constitutional error could be argued to jury. | Rights not violated; jury argument inappropriate. | Proper; no error given deemed lack of constitutional violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Campbell, 862 A.2d 659 (Pa. Super. 2004) (passenger may be asked for identification during stop; no privacy expectation)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (identification requests do not implicate the Fourth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Au, 606 Pa. 113 (Pa. 2010) (implications of detaining passengers without reasonable suspicion under Au)
- Commonwealth v. Graham, 685 A.2d 132 (Pa. Super. 1996) (companion arrestee safety; stop-and-frisk standards limited to armed-and-dangerous inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Kearney, 411 Pa. Super. 274 (Pa. Super. 1992) (automatic companion frisk cases; general safety considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Shiflet, 543 Pa. 164 (Pa. 1995) (discusses standards for reasonable suspicion and detentions)
- Duncan v. State, 572 Pa. 438 (Pa. 2003) (public exposure of identity and privacy expectations)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (stops and frisks require reasonable suspicion)