Plain View exception to the warrant requirement after Com. v. Alexander
Com. v. Saunders, 2022 WL 17588739 (Pa. Super. 2022) (unreported), allocatur granted July 18, 2023, appeal docket 29 EAP 2023
Appellant Saunders was convicted of firearms violations following the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. As the Superior Court on appeal summarized the facts:
Philadelphia Police Officer Matthew Ibbotson was patrolling in the high crime area of the 2500 block of West Indiana Avenue in the city of Philadelphia with his partner, Officer Washington…. At 6:55 p.m., he spotted an illegally parked silver Honda vehicle with heavily tinted windows. … As he drove closer, the vehicle pulled out in front of him, making a right turn onto Indiana Avenue without utilizing a turn signal. … Accordingly, Officer Ibbotson initiated a traffic stop for three violations of the Motor Vehicle Code: illegal parking, unlawfully tinted windows, and failure to use a turn signal…. The vehicle immediately pulled over. Officer Ibbotson approached the vehicle, found that Appellant was the sole occupant, informed him of the above-described traffic code violations, and requested his license and proofs of registration and insurance. … Appellant asked for permission to retrieve his license from his pocket, which Officer Ibbotson granted after Appellant stated that he did not have any weapons in the vehicle…. Believing that Appellant had no weapons in the vehicle, Officer Ibbotson told Appellant that “he [could] move about the car and get the documents that [he] asked him for.” … At this time, Appellant reached over with his right arm to the glove box area while simultaneously dropping his left arm down by his feet and moving it in a motion that led the officer to believe that Appellant was “pushing something.” … In response, Officer Ibbotson repositioned himself to the front of the car, where he shined his flashlight through the windshield. … From this vantage point, Officer Ibbotson observed the handle of a gun protruding from under Appellant’s seat, next to Appellant’s left hand. … Since Appellant had misled the officers about the presence of the firearm in the vehicle and his left hand had been observed next to it, Officer Ibbotson became concerned for his and his partner’s safety…. Accordingly, he used a hand signal to warn his partner about the risk while asking Appellant to turn off and exit the vehicle. … Once Appellant complied, Officer Ibbotson frisked Appellant, placed him in handcuffs, and retrieved Appellant’s license from his wallet…. After Appellant was handcuffed, Officer Ibbotson asked him if he had a firearm permit…. Appellant responded that he did not, and the officers placed Appellant in the back of their vehicle “for officer safety” while they continued their investigation. … Officer Ibbotson retrieved the loaded black Taurus PT840 40-caliber handgun from Appellant’s vehicle. The officer also ran a check to confirm that Appellant did not have a firearm permit, which also led to the discovery that the weapon was stolen. … As a result of these findings, Officer Ibbotson placed Appellant under arrest and charged him with possession of a firearm prohibited, carrying a firearm without a license, and carrying a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia.
Slip op. at 1-3.
On appeal, Saunders relied on Commonwealth v. Alexander, 243 A.3d 177, 181 (Pa. 2020) (holding that the “Pennsylvania constitution requires both a showing of probable cause and exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search of an automobile), arguing that Alexander requires that the Commonwealth must demonstrate exigent circumstances before invoking the plain view exception to the warrant requirement in the context of automobile searches. Relying on Commonwealth v. McMahon, 280 A.3d 1069, 1074 (Pa.Super. 2022), where the Superior Court in a published opinion “rejected the precise claim [Saunders] advances by holding that Alexander did not supplant the plain view exception for automobiles, the Superior Court rejected Saunders’ argument.
The Supreme Court has granted allocatur. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:
Does this Court’s holding in Commonwealth v. Alexander, 243 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2020), require a fact specific assessment to determine whether exigency exists to provide officers with a right of access to the interior of an automobile under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement?
For more information, contact Kevin McKeon or Dennis Whitaker.