Commonwealth v. Williams
73 A.3d 609
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- On April 5, 2011, Officer Garrett observed Williams place shopping bags next to a marked police cruiser in the known pickpocketing area of 15th and Market Streets; Garrett approached and asked questions.
- Garrett saw a Banana Republic receipt on top of a bag, reached into the bag, removed the receipt, observed the purchase was by credit card (last four digits 0038), and asked Williams for the card.
- Williams initially said he had no wallet, then voluntarily handed over a wallet containing Nancy Campbell’s MasterCard (last four digits 0038), other cards in her name, and transit passes; he was then arrested.
- Campbell testified her wallet was hanging on her chair at a hotel coffee bar earlier that day, she did not authorize the purchases, and about $1,200 was charged at Banana Republic plus other unauthorized charges.
- Trial court denied suppression; Williams waived jury, was convicted of forgery and theft-related charges, and was sentenced to 1.5 to 5 years; majority of appellate panel affirmed the convictions and denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the initial officer contact a mere encounter or an unlawful seizure? | Contact was a mere encounter or, alternatively, supported by reasonable suspicion given officer experience, location, prior encounters, evasive answers. | Officer conduct (two officers flanking, questioning) constituted a seizure without reasonable suspicion. | Majority: Contact was a mere encounter up to receipt removal; alternatively, reasonable suspicion existed for investigative detention. |
| Was seizure of the receipt and subsequent wallet search lawful (plain view/probable cause)? | Receipt was in plain view on top of bag from lawful vantage; officer had probable cause after wallet produced showing victim’s cards. | Seizure of receipt occurred after an unlawful detention and the incriminating nature was not immediately apparent, so plain view did not apply. | Majority: Receipt seizure was permissible (plain view/totality of circumstances); wallet contents provided probable cause for arrest. Dissent: seizure unconstitutional and tainted subsequent evidence. |
| Was evidence sufficient to support a forgery conviction under § 4101? | Circumstantial evidence (possession of card, Banana Republic bag and receipt, unauthorized charges) plus common-practice judicial notice that a signature is required, supports that Williams executed/transferred a writing. | Evidence only showed possession/use of card; no direct proof Williams altered or executed a writing (no signing shown). | Majority: Circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain forgery conviction under the statute. Dissent: conviction rests on a different subsection than charged and evidence insufficient for the charged subsection. |
| Remedy for alleged suppression error (if any) | N/A | Evidence obtained following unlawful seizure should be suppressed and convictions reversed/remanded. | Majority: No suppression error; convictions affirmed. Dissent would reverse forgery conviction and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Au, 42 A.3d 1002 (Pa. 2012) (officer request for identification does not by itself convert consensual encounter into investigatory detention)
- Commonwealth v. Lyles, 54 A.3d 76 (Pa. Super. 2012) (analysis of citizen/police encounter levels and when suspicion is required)
- Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884 (Pa. 2000) (objective reasonable-person test for seizure and totality-of-circumstances approach)
- Commonwealth v. Whitlock, 69 A.3d 635 (Pa. Super. 2013) (plain view doctrine requires lawful vantage, immediately apparent incriminating character, and lawful access)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 64 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussion of suppression-review standard and plain view seizure principles)