Summary
The Pennsylvania Superior Court reviewed Richard Shaw’s challenge to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a traffic stop and warrantless vehicle search. The court upheld the finding that the stop was supported by probable cause based on an alleged rear-license-plate-lighting violation, but held that recent Pennsylvania precedent required reconsideration of probable cause and exigent circumstances for the vehicle search. The court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the officer had probable cause to stop Shaw's vehicle for violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4303(b).
- Whether the warrantless search of Shaw's vehicle was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- Whether the odor of marijuana alone established probable cause to search the vehicle in light of Pennsylvania's Medical Marijuana Act and the decisions in Commonwealth v. Alexander and Commonwealth v. Barr.
Holdings
- The officer had probable cause to stop Shaw's vehicle after personally confirming that the license-plate lights were not operating, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4303(b).
- The suppression court's determination that the odor of marijuana alone established probable cause to search the vehicle could not stand under the intervening decisions in Commonwealth v. Alexander and Commonwealth v. Barr. The matter had to be remanded for further proceedings addressing probable cause and exigent circumstances under the governing Pennsylvania constitutional standard.
Key quotations
“The Supreme Court held that warrantless vehicle searches require both probable cause and exigent circumstances under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” (10)
“the “odor of marijuana alone, absent any other circumstances, cannot provide individualized suspicion of criminal activity.”” (11-12)
“the odor alone does not imply individualized suspicion of criminal activity” (12)
Factual background
A police officer observed that Shaw's vehicle lacked illumination for its rear license plate and stopped the vehicle under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4303(b). During the stop, the officer smelled marijuana emanating from the vehicle, observed that Shaw was nervous and sweating, and learned that the vehicle was registered to someone else. Shaw did not consent to a search, but police searched the vehicle without a warrant and found multiple individually packaged, vacuum-sealed bags of marijuana.
Procedural history
The Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County denied Shaw's motion to suppress on April 11, 2019, relying on then-prevailing Pennsylvania automobile-search law. A jury subsequently convicted Shaw of possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia and acquitted him of possession with intent to deliver and driving without rear lights. The trial court imposed intermediate punishment followed by probation, denied post-sentence motions, and Shaw appealed. During the appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Commonwealth v. Alexander and the Superior Court decided Commonwealth v. Barr, materially changing the applicable search law.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with Commonwealth v. Alexander and Commonwealth v. Barr, including reconsideration of whether probable cause and exigent circumstances supported the warrantless vehicle search. The traffic-stop ruling remains affirmed; the suppression ruling concerning probable cause to search is reversed.