Commonwealth v. Waddell
61 A.3d 198
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Terrance Waddell was convicted after a stipulated non-jury trial of multiple offenses: two counts of PWID (marijuana), three counts of PNPF, two counts of receiving stolen property, one count of possession of marijuana (two statutes), and one count of drug paraphernalia, with a total aggregate sentence of 6–10 years’ imprisonment and 5 years’ probation to run consecutively for some counts; $82,176 was forfeited.
- Appellant challenged the Drug Act scheduling of marijuana, arguing that medical uses negate Schedule I status and thus violate due process; the trial court rejected this argument.
- Appellant also moved to suppress marijuana and firearms seized during a warrantless entry into his home, contending the police lacked exigent circumstances; the suppression court denied the motion.
- Police entered Appellant’s home without a warrant after a knock-and-talk, leading to the discovery of approximately ten pounds of marijuana and several firearms; a search warrant was obtained and executed later, revealing more evidence.
- The Superior Court reversed the conviction and suppression denial, holding that the entry was illegal because the alleged exigency was manufactured and there was insufficient exigent circumstances to overcome the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement; marijuana remains a Schedule I substance under the Drug Act, and the due process issue does not render the charges invalid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether marijuana is still a Schedule I substance under the Drug Act. | Waddell argued marijuana has accepted medical uses, so it cannot be Schedule I. | Commonwealth argued Schedule I status is fixed by statute regardless of medical-use debate. | Marijuana remains Schedule I; due process claim fails. |
| Whether the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances. | Exigency existed to prevent destruction of evidence; the entry was lawful. | Exigency was manufactured and insufficient to justify entry; suppression proper. | Exigency not proved; warrantless entry illegal; suppression affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 444 Pa.Super. 206 (1995) (statutory interpretation of schedules; plain language governs)
- Commonwealth v. Roland, 535 Pa. 595 (1994) (exigent circumstances balancing factors for home entries)
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 785 A.2d 501 (Pa.Super.2001) (observed firearms/complex drug activity supporting exigency)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 836 A.2d 978 (Pa.Super.2003) (motel drug activity; mid-morning entry; exigency factors)
- Commonwealth v. Bostick, 958 A.2d 543 (Pa.Super.2008) (plainclothes surveillance; risk of evidence destruction; exigency)
- Commonwealth v. Demshock, 854 A.2d 553 (Pa.Super.2004) (police manufactured exigency; protection of home principle)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 591 Pa. 1 (2007) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; factual record binding)
- Grahame, 607 Pa. 389 (Pa. 2010) (gun-drug nexus; limits of inference linking drugs to weapons)
- Zhahir, 561 Pa. 545 (2000) (“guns follow drugs” presumption criticisms; exigency considerations)