191 A.3d 901
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- At ~9:15 p.m. in a high-crime area, officers stopped a car for a stop-sign violation; Thorne was the front-seat passenger.
- While officers ran IDs in their patrol car, Officer Sweeney saw Thorne “dip” toward the floor/center console and lean that way.
- Database checks showed the driver was a known gang member; no warrants for occupants.
- Officers ordered both occupants out to frisk; Thorne initially refused and when officer attempted to remove him he lunged toward the center console.
- After removing Thorne, officers searched the passenger compartment (including the center console) and recovered a loaded handgun and cash.
- Thorne moved to suppress; the trial court granted the motion. Commonwealth appealed and the Superior Court reversed and remanded, holding the console search was justified under the totality of circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a protective search of the car’s center console after the traffic stop | Search was justified: lawful stop, high-crime area, recent local shootings, Thorne’s furtive dipping, nervousness, refusal to exit, and lunging toward console created specific and articulable facts that he was dangerous and could access a weapon | Officers lacked reasonable suspicion; discovery that the driver was a gang member only after the stop improperly expanded the encounter and did not convert suspicion into a lawful basis to search the console (trial court relied on Reppert) | Superior Court reversed: under Long and the totality of circumstances (location, recent shootings, furtive movements, refusal to exit, lunge, officer experience, and known gang affiliation), officer reasonably believed safety was at risk and could search areas where a weapon could be hidden (center console) |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (U.S. 1983) (protective search of passenger compartment limited to areas where weapon may be placed is permissible on reasonable belief suspect is dangerous)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977) (officer may order vehicle occupant out of car after a lawful traffic stop for officer safety)
- Commonwealth v. Reppert, 814 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Super. 2002) (holding that a post-stop order to exit and subsequent search may constitute a new interaction; facts there led to suppression)
- Commonwealth v. Cartagena, 63 A.3d 294 (Pa. Super. 2013) (noting that contextual evidence—high-crime area, officer experience, delay facts—is often needed to sustain an officer’s reasonable suspicion to search passenger compartment)
- Commonwealth v. Morris, 644 A.2d 721 (Pa. 1994) (officer’s observation of movement toward floor/console can justify belief safety is compromised and a protective search)
- Commonwealth v. Tuggles, 58 A.3d 840 (Pa. Super. 2012) (a single motion indicative of attempting to secret a weapon can support a protective search of the center console)