Commonwealth v. Whitlock
69 A.3d 635
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Police suppression order (July 15, 2011) precluded introducing heroin from a bucket on Appellee Whitlock's front porch; Commonwealth appeals.
- Officers in plain clothes observed three men, including Appellee, near 5122 Lydell Street in Hazelwood (a high crime/drug area) and saw Appellee drop a wrapped object into a bucket on the porch.
- Officer Fetty observed the object as five bricks of heroin wrapped in newspaper/magazine paper; he suspected narcotics but could not see inside the wrap.
- The officers detained the trio and viewed the bucket; the package appeared suspicious but its contents were not visible, and the officers did not witness a drug transaction.
- Trial court held the seizure was improper under the plain view doctrine; court found lack of probable cause and thus suppression was proper; Commonwealth appealed under Pa.R.A.P. 311(d).
- Appellate standard of review requires deference to trial court findings of fact but independent legal ruling on whether plain view justified a warrantless search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bucket on the porch, viewed from a lawful vantage point, supported probable cause under plain view. | Commonwealth: observations created probable cause to seize. | Whitlock: no immediately apparent incriminating nature; no probable cause. | No; suppression affirmed; no immediate incriminating view. |
| Whether officer experience can supply the nexus for probable cause in plain view. | Commonwealth: officer experience plus observations suffice. | Whitlock: experience alone cannot establish probable cause absent other incriminating facts. | No; experience alone insufficient to establish probable cause. |
| Whether Colon supports the trial court by negative inference that probable cause was lacking. | Commonwealth: cases show incriminating packaging and behavior support suspicion. | Whitlock: lack of suspicious conduct; no transaction; insufficient nexus. | Colon supports trial court’s ruling; no probable cause established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2011) (plain view requires lawful vantage and immediately apparent incriminating nature; totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. McCullum, 602 A.2d 313 (Pa. 1992) (Horton framework for plain view; three-part test)
- Commonwealth v. Graham, 721 A.2d 1075 (Pa. 1998) (plain view analysis under totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009) (limits on using officer experience to establish probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Dunlap, 941 A.2d 671 (Pa. 2007) (nexus required between officer experience and search/seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 777 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2001) (negative inference supporting lack of probable cause in plain view context)
- Commonwealth v. White, 669 A.2d 896 (Pa. 1995) (general warrant requirement and exceptions incl. plain view)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain-view doctrine three-part test)