Commonwealth v. Smith
85 A.3d 530
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Appellant Braheem Smith was on state parole and had signed a parole conditions form consenting to warrantless searches; his girlfriend signed a Home Provider Agreement allowing unannounced home visits.
- Parole agents, as part of a Chester Threat Initiative and after an anonymous tip about drug sales, conducted a late-night home visit to check compliance with parole conditions.
- During a walk-through of common areas the agents smelled unburnt marijuana near the basement, went downstairs, and seized a large quantity of marijuana, money, a scale, baggies, and a photo of Appellant.
- Appellant fled the residence, turned himself in to police hours later, received Miranda warnings, signed a waiver, and provided a written statement/confession.
- Trial court denied suppression motions as to both the evidence seized from the home and Appellant’s confession; Appellant was convicted of possession with intent to deliver and sentenced; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless entry/walk-through of the home was an unconstitutional search lacking reasonable suspicion | The agents’ walk-through was a search unsupported by reasonable suspicion; evidence should be suppressed | Parole agents were conducting an administrative home visit under statutory supervisory authority; limited walk-throughs are permissible and the odor created reasonable suspicion to search | Court held visit was a lawful supervisory/home visit; smelling marijuana provided reasonable suspicion/plain-view (plain-smell) to search and seize evidence — suppression denied |
| Whether Appellant's written confession was coerced/involuntary | Confession was coerced or given under duress to secure girlfriend’s release and should be suppressed | Appellant voluntarily surrendered, received Miranda warnings, signed a waiver, and confessed without threats or promises — statement was voluntary | Court held confession voluntary under totality of circumstances; waiver valid and no coercion — suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (Fourth Amendment search threshold inquiry)
- Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1998) (parolees have diminished expectation of privacy; parole conditioned on compliance)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 692 A.2d 1031 (Pa. 1997) (parolees/probationers have limited Fourth Amendment rights)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (plain-view seizure elements)
- Commonwealth v. Copeland, 955 A.2d 396 (Pa.Super. 2008) (analogizing plain-smell to plain-view for marijuana odor)
- Commonwealth v. Pickron, 634 A.2d 1093 (Pa. 1993) (parole officers cannot act as stalking horses for police)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 361 A.2d 846 (Pa.Super. 1976) (distinguishing administrative visits from law enforcement searches)
- United States v. LeBlanc, 490 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2007) (probation officer home visit and brief walk-through not a Fourth Amendment search)