*1 liаbility, likely civil would be less to initiate pursuit, which likely would criminals to flee. encourage 348, 106 Majority Opinion at A.3d at 689.
As I that a agree balancing of the Althaus factors does not support imposition duty by of a of care police passen- vehicle, gers whose in a or presence fleeing whose relationship vehicle, to the driver of the fleeing police, is unknown to I find majority’s discussion as to whether the police vehicle camera recording suggests the officers should have been aware presence passengers vehicle to be unnecessary. As there was no suggestion the officers knew rеlationship the driver and I passenger,2 simply would hold that the Commonwealth Court’s affirmance of the trial court’s grant summary judgment was proper under the circumstances.
106A.3d 695 Pennsylvania, Appellant COMMONWEALTH of ENIMPAH, Appellee. Andrew Keith Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued May 2014.
Decided Dec. 2014. Appellants repeatedly 2. While Complaint asserted in their Amended vehicle, passenger fleeing that the decedent was ah innocent see ¶ 12/11/08, (decedent e.g., Complaint, Amended at 8 "was an innocent ¶ id. (decedent passenger"); rear seat "was at all relevant times passenger”), an they allege innocent did not that the officer knew or relationship should have known of the between the decedent and the driver. *3 Eisenhart, Jr., Lynn Esq., Esq., Nichole David J. Arnold Office, for Commonwealth Attorney’s District County Lebanon Pennsylvania. Offices, Grenoble, Law Davis Esq., Buzgon Scott Louis Lebanon, Enimpah. Keith for Andrew TODD, SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER,
CASTILLE, C.J., McCAFFERY, STEVENS, JJ.
OPINION EAKIN. Justice proof by demand to evidence suppress
Does a motion in the area of a reasonable accused bur- before the Commonwealth’s is found which evidence Here, the Commonwealth triggered? is den of production appellee’s suppression at any present refused appellee not in force until its was claiming obligation hearing, met this “threshold” burden. The trial court accordingly evidence; suppressed the Superior Court affirmed. We affirm that decision and reiterate that which should now be cases, clear: “In all the burden of production upon [ ] Commonwealth.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 581 cmt.
Appellee was a in a car passenger stopped by police; he was vehicle, asked to step so, out of the he and as did a plastic bag fell from his The lap. driver consented to a search of the car and police cocaine; seized the bag, which contained naturally, all occupants denied knowledge bag, but appellee was He charged. moved to suppress, challenging constitution- ality of the detention that led to the search. At the suppres- sion hearing, prosecutor refused to offer evidence until appellee met the “threshold” stated above. After much de- bate, the trial court informed the prosecutor it would be obliged grant if motion she failed to present any evidence. The prosecutor maintained her position, “If stating, I’m wrong[,] that[;] the [a]ppellate courts will tell me then I will respect that decision.” N.T. Suppression 1/4/12, Hearing, at 13.
The Superior Court noted Pa.R.Crim.P. 581
requires
plead
a suppression motion with
partic-
sufficiеnt
issue(s).
ularity to frame the
The court noted our decision in
Millner,
Commonwealth v.
(2005),
585 Pa.
Moreover, the court emphasized that Pennsylvania’s auto- matic rule involves a defendant’s “right to have the merits of his suppression adjudicated motion without a prelim- inary or showing ownership possession in the premises or
362 (citation, quotation internal emphasis, and Id.
effects seized.” the omitted). Thus, suppression affirmed the court marks a presents properly a defendant order, when holding that Commonwealth motion, for the enough “it is not suppression here, rather it must but as it did on its hands simply sit before its evidence the bring and of production, meet a burden informed court, fully a can then make which Id., at 1033. decision.” granted we appeal; allowance sought
The Commonwealth pro- burden of when the Commonwealth’s to consider review acknowledges that The Commonwealth triggered. duction offenses, automatic appellee giving possessory are these the burden it both concedes bears and further standing, However, the Com- persuasion. burden of and the production of a reasonable showing contends that “[a]bsent monwealth seized, the or items in an area searched expectation privacy to establish shifts to the Commonwealth burden never Brief, at conduct.” Commonwealth’s police of the lawfulness omitted). (citations 15 charac- point at one observes Millner
The Commonwealth a legitimate burden tо show terized defendant’s one, defines as it then term “preliminary” as a interest “ necessary prelude to forming a usually before and ‘coming ” further Id., The at 20. Commonwealth else.’ something “ no need for ‘there was stated the Millner *6 Appellee concedes he must establish he had a reasonable expectation privacy ultimately to succeed but contends it is not a threshold issue that must be established before the Rather, Commonwealth’s burden of production triggered. is argues he the “reasonable privacy” issue is part analysis merits conducted after the parties pre- have Brief, sented their evidencе. Appellee’s Millner (noting concluded expectation privacy must be to proven “prevail” motion). on suppression suggests He Millner and Boulware cases, distinguishable are because in those the Commonwealth evidence, actually presented allowing the court to suppression reach the merits of the privacy expectation inquiry.
Further, appellee maintains that adopting Common- would, cases, wealth’s interpretation many conflict with a defendant’s right to remain silent under the Pennsylvania and United States He Constitutions. contests the Common- argument wealth’s that a defendant can establish a reasonable others, of privacy through testimony noting inconceivable, this while argument, not would not in all apply scenarios. Appellee suggests burden on the Common- burdensome,” wealth “is not or great overly and notes the trial gave court notice prosecutor repeated that he would Id., if suppress any evidence she failed to call witnesses. at 12-13. to
Generally, standing have pursue 581, motion under Pa.R.Crim.P. the defendant’s own constitu However, tional must have been rights infringed. it is well settled that a charged with a offense in possessory this Commonwealth has “automatic standing” because “the charge alleges itself an interest sufficient to support claim a[ ] I, Sell, 46, § Article [under 8].” Commonwealth v. 504 Pa. 470 457, (1983) (citation A.2d 468 and internal quotation marks omitted). This rule entitles a defendant to a review of the merits of his suppression motion without a show- preliminary seized, or items premises in the or ownership possession
ing 615, 492, Peterson, 636 A.2d 535 Pa. v. Commonwealth does not above, the (1993), and as noted standing, In addition standing. challenge appellee’s interest that he had a must show a defendant though, society prepared thing invaded or seized place Hawkins, 553 Pa. as reasonable. Commonwealth recognize omitted). (1998) (citation 265, A.2d similar, inter cursorily While functions. Stand serving different concepts est are different to assert a defendant “empowers interest that ing legal is a suppress exclude or and thus seek to violation constitutional rules exclusionary pursuant government’s States Constitu Amendment of United under the Fourth Constitution.” Pennsylvania 8 of the or Article Section tion *7 omitted). is (citations a defendant Id., It ensures id., at 269 of his own. See right a constitutional asserting omitted) (citations recognize refusal to (noting this Court’s The rights). constitutional vicarious assertions of or of the search validity into the inquiry is an privacy itself; protected privacy has no if the defendant seizure I, § 8 is nor Article interest, thе Fourth Amendment neither White, Pa. 327 A.2d See Commonwealth implicated. (1974). dic essence, standing a defendant’s 40, 42 In while I, be his may brought, § Article a claim under tates when the claim will succeed—once interest controls whether privacy must, short, having standing, “[h]e has shown a defendant a of his claim, by showing its merits demonstrate brought his in the prem privacy and legitimate reasonable omitted). (citation Peterson, at 618 ises.” relies on the supra, noted the Commonwealth As its conten support in Boulware to decision Superior Court’s to establish his burden tion that the defendant’s It production. burden of its temporally precedes interest as the situatiоn is be the same the result here must maintains Brief, 21. Commonwealth’s like” that in Boulware. “exactly merit, course are not and we of without argument This is Superior a of the Court. In by precedent panel bound from Boulware, robbery was with and filed a charged defendant evidence, a suppress motion which included sweatshirt from At the he suppression hearing, pre- seized his home. evidence, no had no as robbery sented automatic not was crime. The possessory presented no evidence to his arrest or seizure of the sweat- pertaining evidence, the trial court accordingly, suppressed shirt — alia, reversed, thе Superior Court inter the defen- noting, had standing. dant not shown
The Commonwealth is correct that the Boulware panel that a defendant must interest opined prove his before the Commonwealth’s burden of is production triggered —for the reasons infra, disapproved. discussed Re- holding harmless, gardless, error was as the was not entitled to claim reach the merits his because suppression Thus, standing. he failed to establish case is not “exactly this Moreover, like” or analogous to Boulware. Boulware preced- Millner,1 our Superior ed decision in after which the recognized, legitimate “Whether defendant has expecta- [a] tion of privacy component analysis is a of the merits of the ... made upon motion evaluation presented by Commonwealth and the defendant.” Com- Burton, (en monwealth v. 973 A.2d (Pa.Super.2009) banc) (citation omitted). Millner,
In to suppress defendant filed a motion evidence behind possessory charges involving cocaine and a officer, arresting firearm. The investigating reports gun- *8 fire, car, saw the place defendant a in a and saw handgun an accomplice bag containing throw a on the what ground was to After drugs, determined be the officers drugs. finding defendant, searched the An discovering packеts cocaine. view, handgun plain officer found the and testified nothing defendant, in the car appeared belong to to the nor did the Though privacy clear 1. Peterson made that the defendant’s interest claim, Superior involved the merits of a Court did not significant presenta- find this fact to the and the allocation of burdens tion of evidence until decision in our Millner. car, registered not which was to the key have a
defendant events, but to his version testified The defendant him. the vehi- any connection testimony suggesting no provided to his cohort. belonged it cle, stating instead to demon- failed the defendant argued The Commonwealth vehicle, but privacy expectation a reasonable strate The Superior motion. the suppression granted the trial court credibly testimony affirmed, finding the defendant’s Court suspicion or reasonable cause probable had no police showed Millner, at cohort, vehicle. him, or the his or search to arrest had no reasonable defendant it conceded 685. While need not address it opined the court privacy, failed to show the Commonwealth because argument that the fire- the defendant between connection possessory Id. arm.2 came gun that the undisputed noted it wаs we appeal,
On no evidence offered the defendant the vehicle and from therein: a reasonable establish his, but was was not [Ijnstead, that the vehicle he stated did not claim defendant] Parker. Kenny [The by owned vehicle, toor or access the to use right that he had Moreover, the (such it. from police) as the exclude others demonstrated uncontradicted Commonwealth’s other than [the was someone registered the vehicle that Parker) or other (or key, papers that no defendant] have indicated found which would were identification to the vehicle. connection any legitimatе had defendant] [the prevail cannot Id., that “a defendant observed at 686. We that the he demonstrates motion unless a suppression upon own, personal his conduct violated challenged police Superior found the Id., Accordingly, we at 692. interests.” whether the to assess unnecessary it deeming erred in Id., at 693-94. interest. protected privacy had a " reasoned, illegal and search for the detention ‘But 2. The court also defendant,] the vehicle at all. never have searched police would [the illegal already a mere extension of the vehicle was The search ” Id. search.’ *9 The contends the Millner Court’s character- Commonwealth signifies ization of the burden as it must “preliminary” pre- id., 686, presentation cede the of other evidence. See (citations (referring preliminary to “defendant’s burden” omit- ted)). blush, context, At first without the word proper “pre- liminary” might support position. Commonwealth’s See id., at 692 that where there no evidence establish- (noting was interest, “there was no need for the ing privacy defendant’s to establish the of the police entry lawfulness firearm, into the vehicle and the seizure of the and there was no basis which the lower courts could order its upon properly (citation (“[0]ur Hawkins, omitted)); at 268 n. 3 suppression” cases the burden the defendant place squarely upon seeking to establish a as legitimate expectation privacy Peterson, (“With- case[.]”); an essential element of his privacy, entry out such into the store police intrusion, front would have constituted no and the exigent which are posited justify police circumstances action need advanced.”). not be
However, order, analytical in context refers to “preliminary” not a order of temporal proof. Privacy expectations are “preliminary” in the sense that their absence renders all that Indeed, cases, follows irrelevant. in all of these the Common- wealth evidence sufficient to presented disposition allow case, defendant’s claim—in each evidence Commonwealth’s interest, any protected privacy showed the defendant lacked effectively and the defendant failed to rebut that evidence. in dealing peculiar We were not with the situation which the Rather, each single Commonwealth refused call witness.3 case dealt with the court’s of a post-hearing analysis claim’s in significance merits and the of a defendant’s interest inquiry.4 None of these cases involved the conducting faсt, presently 3. In this Court has characterized the situation before us Rundle, "virtually as inconceivable.” Commonwealth ex rel. Butler v. (1968). 429 Pa. 239 A.2d Millner, example, given 4. For the Commonwealth's uncontradicted showing the defendant had no vehicle, prevail we concluded the defendant could not on the merits of and, result, his motion as a no need the Commonwealth "there was for of bur- shifting or the presented, in which evidence order on those commenting as dens, not read them and one should *10 issues. what- cases, presented was no evidence there these
Unlike Conse- here, single witness. neither called party soever— solely based the motion was forced to decide the court quently, the burden of of production, bore the burden party on which which, evidence,” Superior as the the forward with “going The allocation noted, terms. basically synonymous are the prove must that burden is clear—the Commonwealth the by were not violated of the accused rights constitutional the detention led to that unlawful The allegation search. was no search, expectation shows there but if the evidence searched, has met its the prosecution in the area privacy lawfulness of the deten- further. The go and need not burden inure to irrelevant, еrror cannot as constitutional tion becomes accused. To overcome the expectation-less the benefit of showing expecta- such an result, has the burden of the accused so, again the search is If the accused does tion did exist. constitutionality. issue, must its prove and the prosecution defendant bears sure, the jurisprudence, To be under our interest. privacy to his respect with persuasion the burden Gordon, Pa. 683 A.2d Commonwealth See omitted).5 However, (1996) (citation ability the defendant’s the not a Commonwealth’s prerequisite meet this burden is satisfy it must all a burden production, initial burden of 581(H) states clearly Rule 581 cmt. cases. See Pa.R.Crim.P. evidence that the present burden to it is the Commonwealth’s not The infringed. were rights constitutional defendant’s interest, choosing privacy concede the may so, conduct; if it does only legality police contest need not be privacy” “reasonable defendant’s Millner, [conduct,]” police of the to establish the lawfulness i.e., omitted), (citation matter whether the Commonwealth it did not through legal obtained ultimately proven that its evidence was had means. general exception rule that the judicially created 5. This is a Commonwealth, appellee does not persuasion is on the burden of argue for its abandonment. However, Commonwealth, if established. the evidence of the party with the burden of production, shows the defendant interest, lacked such a establishing burden of is on the contrary defendant. reject
While we the Commonwealth’s interpretation burden, “preliminary” nature of this it is worth that in noting motion, analyzing merits of a the trial court indeed, may, treat defendant’s interest as a “threshold” or “preliminary” matter. That is to if the say, interest, evidence shows there was no privacy the Common- more; review, wealth need prove no in terms of the court’s it need no further if go it finds the defendаnt proven has not However, reasonable privacy. as it relates to evidence, the parties’ presentation of our cases and the Rules *11 of Criminal Procedure make clear that the Commonwealth has the burden of production, give the court evidence allowing court, that conclusion. it places Once the issue before the as a basis denying for the suppression, may the prove contrary.6 burden, If that is found proof to meet defendant’s then the search itself bemay examined with the burden on the prosecution to it show was not unconstitutional. today
Our decision
is consistent with our
in
reasoning
Sell.
There, we refused to follow the
Supreme
United States
Court’s abandonment of the automatic
in
standing doctrine
Salvucci,
83, 95,
2547,
United States v.
448 U.S.
100 S.Ct.
65
(1980).
filed,
L.Ed.2d 619
The
day
same
Salvucci was
the
High Court released its
in Rawlings Kentucky,
decision
v.
448
98, 100
2556,
(1980),
U.S.
S.Ct.
forthrightly any Amendment, rather than on Fourth under rights of concept intertwined invariably but theoretically separate, the clear undermine “decline[d] This Court standing.”). Fourth making the I, by8 Article [S]ection language of privacy’ amorphous ‘legitimate Amendment’s unreasonable against guarantee our state part standard a Sell, did so: at 468. We and seizures.” searches Supreme the United States we only f[ound] not because “standing” between distinction analytical Court’s interpre- our unhelpful question,” substantive “threshold but also because I, protection, 8’s [S]ection tation of Article current Court’s Supreme the United States believe[d] we need- concept of privacy” “legitimate expectation use unreasonable element of the critical from lessly detracts intrusion. governmental omitted). (internal citation
Id.
propriety
case,
to review
we are not asked
In this
“legitimate
to establish
requiring defendants
suppress
on a motion
can
they
succeed
privacy” before
Appellee
by
contestеd
Commonwealth.
been properly
has
it.7 Howev-
us to
not ask
revisit
and does
point
concedes this
our
decision:
Sell
er,
import
the clear
ignore
we cannot
Peterson,
Pa.Super.
A
7.
concurrence
(1993),
opined
(1991),
Sell
by
A criminal defendant with pursue mo tion to in suppress this Commonwealth has a right compel the prosecution prove its evidence was not obtainеd in violation of his rights, having present constitutional without evidence of his own. If the Commonwealth shows he lacks a more, reasonable expectation privacy, it need do no absent proof contrary to the from the accused himself. Where the cannot, not, all, or present any will evidence at the defendant’s motion must be granted, regardless wheth er he ultimately could establish a reasonable privacy.8 we affirm
Accordingly, ruling Court. Superior affirmed; remanded; jurisdiction Order case relinquished. Former Justice McCAFFERY did not participate decision of this case. CASTILLE, BAER,
Chief Justice Justices and TODD join opinion. STEVENS a concurring opinion,
Justice SAYLOR files footnote 2 of joined by which is Chief Justice CASTILLE. Allen, Proof, Uncertainty, Ambiguity
8. See Ronald J. Burdens Discourse, (1994) Legal Pol'y Modem 17 Harv. J.L. & Pub. ("Assume party production persuasion A has the burden on X, party any some fact and that neither has evidence relevant to that B, persuasion party party fact. If the burden of on fact X is shifted to A production. party still has the burden of But A has no evidence of X. Consequently, party production A cannot meet its burden of and will lose, though party possibly even B could not meet its burden of persuasion."). *13 372 SAYLOR, concurring.
Justice the burden of conclusion that majority’s I with agree is on hearing at a suppression production 581(H)), that Procedure (as on Rule of Criminal premised in case. I burden this carry failed to its the Commonwealth about however, reservations express my to separately, write in rationale, the manner in majority’s particular, some of the imposed upon defen- the burden expresses which the Court concerning privacy expectations. dants majority that the to the extent difficulty I have Initially, challenge to standing into a defendant’s inquiries portrays of expectations reasonable and into the defendant’s a search Majority Opinion, substantively distinct. See as fre- merits inquiries 364, Standing 106 at 698-99. A.3d Fletcher, A. The Structure William overlap. See quently (1988) (“The of a true 221, essence 229 Standing, 98 L.J. Yale have plaintiff Does following: is the standing question duty? legal of an asserted judicial enforcement legal right law, as a of substantive question should be seen question This or constitutional statutory to the by reference answerable invoked.”). Moreover, much protection whose provision the doctrine preserve caused the Court reasoning which consti- Pennsylvania with standing in association of automatic doctrine, Supreme States against over and United tutional Amend- of Fourth purposes to abandon it for decision Court’s ensuing dеvelopments is in tension with jurisprudence, ment Sell, v. e.g., Commonwealth Pennsylvania Compare, law. (1983) preser- 46, 66, (justifying 470 A.2d 504 Pa. based, in in the Commonwealth of automatic vation undermine the clear that decline to “[w]e on the rationale part, I, the Fourth Amend- by making section 8 of Article language part privacy’ amorphous ‘legitimate ment’s searches and sei- unreasonable against state guarantee our Hawkins, 76, 81-82, Pa. zures”), with Commonwealth (1998) decisions subsequent (explaining 718 A.2d expec- “a prove legitimate require this defendants context under prevail privacy” tation constitutions). account of such On federal and statе disharmony, and while I acknowledge that *14 the doctrine of automatic maintains its in validity Pennsylvania, I find it unhelpful try explain its on continuing longevity the substantive terms employed by majority. the
Additionally, while I
support
majority’s conclusion that
the burden
production
Commonwealth,
is with the
which
case,
resolves
I
this
am more circumspect about the comments
referencing the defendant’s burden to demonstrate privacy
expectations.
In this
I
regard, would note that courts are
often imprecise when addressing
proof.
burdens of
gener
See
Jeffries,
III,
ally John Calvin
Paul B. Stephan
Defenses,
Jr. &
Law,
Presumptions,
Burden
in Criminal
88
of Proof
1325,
(1979)
Yale L.J.
1329 n. 8
(cоmmenting
the term
“burdens of
is
proof’
sometimes used indiscriminately to refer
either to
production
that,
burdens of
or persuasion and
some
times, unfortunately, burdens are misaligned on account of
Thus,
such loose usage).
this
previous depictions
Court’s
of a
burden upon defendants to “prove” legitimate
a
privacy should not
be
necessarily
regarded
fully
as a
realized
elaboration
burden,
nature and extent of that
particular
ly in the absence of a developed explanation. Certainly, it
would be more consistent with this Court’s admonition that
the burden of persuasion
Commonwealth,
rests on the
In re
L.J.,
126, 146-47,
1073,
Pa.
(2013),
622
79 A.3d
1085
to treat
the defendant’s burden in addressing privacy expectations as
(or
one of going forward with the evidence
one
produc
as
tion
on the
contingent
Commonwealth’s previous satisfaction
of its burden of production),1 rather
than as a “judicially
observes,
majority
may
1. As the
it
be the case that the Commonwealth’s
interest,
evidence demonstrates
example,
defendant’s
for
where an officer testifies that he removed contraband from the defen-
6,
person.
Majority Opinion,
dant’s
See
at 369 n.
Supreme Pennsylvania. of 16,
Argued Oct. 2012. Feb. 2014. Resubmitted Decided Dec. 2014. forward, is, offering going that evidence to contradict
has the burden C.J.S, (2011))). § prima (quoting 31A Evidence facie case[J” good argument made a also note that there is a to be that 2. I would focus, burdens, assessing hearing on should be threshold before generally sufficiency suppression See motion first instance. Ringel, William E. and Seizures Arrests and Confessions Searches (2d ed.2014) (discussing hearing § ‘‘[i]f burdens allocated 20:12 moving provide require papers information a sufficient jurisdictions distinguish hearing”). Additionally, between war- most ones, of burden alloca- rant-based searches and warrantless in terms ("A generally showing See id. has the burden tion. pursuant infirmity if or seizure was carried out constitutional a search warrant, proof prosecution if while the burden of is on the to a warrant.”). consequence without It is an police acted unfortunate process is most adjudicatory nature of the that the Court often regimes comprehensive to assess with interrelated facets in a unable fashion, efficiency. enhancing To toward the end fairness appropriate subject rulemaking, degree proof burdens are an might change perhaps that forum a better for a broader assess- offer options. ment of available notes Court police entry of the the lawfulness to establish Commonwealth [evidence], and there the seizure of the vehicle into order properly lower could courts upon was no basis which ” of the Com- in the evidence nothing when suppression^]’ its had a showed the defendant monwealth or Id., at searched. area legitimate omitted). (citation The Common- (alteration in original) Boulware, A.2d cites Commonwealth wealth also held, “Any shifting Superior where (Pa.Super.2005), forward with going burden onto 581(H), not occur until can to Pa.R.Crim.P. pursuant showing his preliminary has made a an and unless accused (citation Id., at 443 of privacy.” omitted). The Commonwealth contends that since the “situa- Boulware[, tion here is like that present exactly presented Brief, must be t]he result the same.” Commonwealth’s at 21.