Commonwealth v. Wilson
11 A.3d 519
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- Philadelphia Gun Court was created in 2005 to handle gun offenses promptly and coordinate agencies to reduce illegal guns in Philadelphia.
- Wilson was convicted at a Gun Court bench trial of three counts of VUFA and possession of a controlled substance.
- Trial court imposed probation with a condition allowing random, warrantless searches of Wilson's residence for weapons.
- The same random search condition was ordered to apply to Wilson's parole as well.
- Wilson challenged the probation and parole search conditions as illegal sentences or unauthorized, and the court evaluated legality under statutes and constitutional standards.
- The panel upheld the probation search condition as legal, but vacated the parole search condition as beyond the court's authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to impose random searches on probation | Wilson argues the probation search condition lacks statutory authority | Commonwealth contends the condition is a legal part of probation | Probation condition valid under §9754(b)-(c)(13) and constitutional |
| Authority to impose random searches on parole | Parole condition lacks statutory authority | Parole conditions can be directed by court | Parole portion vacated; not enforceable as to parole |
| Application of 61 P.S. § 331.27b to court-ordered searches | Statute prohibits warrantless searches without suspicion | Statute governs probation officers acting independently, not court-ordered searches | Statute governs probation officers; court-ordered search not barred by statute; but analysis supports probation searches |
| Fourth Amendment/Article I, § 8 standard for probation searches | Probation searches require suspicion or stronger protection | Probationers have diminished privacy; searches permissible in rehabilitation context | Warrantless probation searches permissible under Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 8 when reasonably related to rehabilitation and public safety |
| Interpretation of sentencing transcript versus written order | Discrepancy between oral sentencing and written order | Written order controls judgment of sentence | Written order governs; court-ordered parole searches invalid where inconsistent with statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mears, 972 A.2d 1210 (Pa.Super.2009) (random searches on probation/parole; authority to impose condition discussed)
- Commonwealth v. Pinko, 811 A.2d 576 (Pa.Super.2002) (legality of sentence; authority to impose conditions; waivable issues)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 980 A.2d 667 (Pa.Super.2009) (parole search standards; distinguishing cases)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (U.S. 2001) (probation/searches; reasonable suspicion not always required)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (U.S. 2006) (parolees have diminished Fourth Amendment rights)
- Pickron, 535 Pa. 241, 634 A.2d 1093 (Pa.1993) (probation/parole searches; need statutory framework)
- Commonwealth v. Hartman, 908 A.2d 316 (Pa.Super.2006) (probation conditions; discretion and rehabilitation)
- Commonwealth v. Gordon, 897 A.2d 504 (Pa.Super.2006) (ornate discussion on sentence text vs transcript)