Commonwealth v. Santiago
160 A.3d 814
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- On July 31, 2014 Officer Paul Sanchez stopped a vehicle for an equipment violation, could not ascertain the driver’s name, and the driver fled, dragging Sanchez and injuring his foot. Sanchez never learned the driver’s identity at the scene.
- Police later found a cell phone near the stop; Sanchez picked it up and, without a warrant, unlocked and navigated the phone to view contacts. He found a contact named “Angel Santiago.”
- Detectives ran the name through NCIC, obtained a prison-release photograph of Angel Santiago (the appellee), and showed it to Sanchez; Sanchez identified the photograph as the driver.
- Appellee (Angel Santiago) was charged with assault and related crimes. He moved to suppress both (1) Sanchez’s out-of-court identification based on the NCIC photo and (2) Sanchez’s in-court identification, arguing both were fruits of an unlawful warrantless search of the phone.
- The suppression court granted suppression of both in-court and out-of-court identification testimony; the Commonwealth appealed, arguing identity testimony is never suppressible.
- The appellate court affirmed suppression of Sanchez’s out-of-court identification (direct product of the illegal search) but reversed suppression of the in-court identification (held to be independently based on Sanchez’s observation at the scene).
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether identity- or identification-related testimony is categorically insuppressible as fruit of an unlawful search | Identification (and identity) is never suppressible; Commonwealth relied on Lopez-Mendoza to bar suppression | The officer’s testimonial identification was the fruit of the unconstitutional warrantless phone search and must be suppressed | Rejected categorical rule; identification evidence can be suppressible if tainted, but identity (defendant’s physical presence) is never suppressible |
| Whether Sanchez’s out-of-court identification from the NCIC photo must be suppressed | Should be admissible because the photograph existed independently | Suppress because Sanchez discovered the photo by exploiting an unconstitutional search he conducted | Affirmed suppression: out-of-court ID was direct and immediate fruit of the illegal phone search and properly excluded |
| Whether Sanchez’s in-court identification must be suppressed because the unconstitutional search led to appellee’s identification | In-court ID should not be suppressed; officer could be brought to trial and his courtroom ID is admissible (Crews/Garvin reasoning) | In-court ID was tainted because the officer’s knowledge and investigation flowed from the illegal search | Reversed suppression: in-court ID admissible because officer’s ability to identify arose independently from his observation at the scene and was not shown to be tainted |
| Appropriate standard to decide admissibility of in-court ID after constitutional violation | Per Commonwealth, identity evidence broadly protected from suppression | Per appellee, apply fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree/taint and independent-source analysis to identification testimony | Court applies taint/independent-source test (Wong Sun/Gilbert/Crews/Garvin) and requires suppression only when testimony is a product of or tainted by the illegality |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (defines exclusionary rule and fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree; permits independent-source/attenuation analysis)
- Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (outlines suppression of ID from unconstitutional lineup and allows inquiry into independent source for in-court ID)
- United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 (distinguishes defendant’s physical presence from testimonial ID; in-court ID may be admissible if untainted)
- I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (states identity/body not suppressible for bringing defendant to court; civil context limits its criminal-law application)
- Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (Suppression of physical-identifying evidence obtained from illegal detention; exclusionary rule deters unconstitutional searches)
- Commonwealth v. Garvin, 293 A.2d 33 (Pa. 1972) (applies taint/independent-source analysis to identification after illegal arrest; not a categorical bar to suppression)