# In the Interest of J.E.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 27, 2007 · 594 Pa. 528

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4963648

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Interest of J.E., a minor, Appeal of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 27, 2007
- **Citations:** 594 Pa. 528; 937 A.2d 421; 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2892
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Saylor
- **Judges:** Baer, Baldwin, Cappy, Castille, Eakin, Fitzgerald, Saylor
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4963648

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting argument by Commonwealth that suppression of evidence seized from juvenile probationer need not be suppressed because subsection 6304(a.l)(3) of Juvenile Act provides that a violation of the statute’s requirement that searches of juvenile probationers be supported by…
- holding appellate court bound by trial court’s finding of facts supported by record and conducting de novo review of legal conclusions drawn therefrom
- stating that the protective sweep search is limited to “ensure the safety of arresting officers”

## Opinion text

Justice SAYLOR
dissenting.
Because I would conclude that the officers’ search of J.E., which extended to the area within his immediate control, was justified to ensure their safety, I respectfully dissent. In this regard, the officers were legitimately on the premises to execute an arrest warrant for J.E.’s stepbrother, who was also a juvenile on probation. In the process of searching the residence for the subject of the warrant, the officers encountered J.E., a probationary juvenile, in a bedroom. In my view, the officers acted reasonably in conducting a limited personal search of J.E. to ensure that he was not armed and would not harm the officers, particularly as J.E. was shaking and Officer Willig had been informed previously that J.E. may have been involved in a shooting. See Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 880 , 107 S.Ct. 3164, 3172 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987) (citing to “the very assumption of the institution of probation that the probationer ... is more likely than the ordinary citizen to violate the law” to hold that information that a probationer “had or might have guns” justified a search of the individual). Furthermore, because of J.E.’s probationary status, the scope of the weapons search was not confined solely to his person, but extended to any personal property in the minor’s possession and control or within his immediate reach. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6304(c); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1882 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (explaining that a protective search is “limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby”). Thus, I agree with Judge McCaffery’s dissenting analysis that, under the totality of the circumstances, the search of J.E., “was the essence of reason ... [given] the potentially catastrophic threat that the probation officers faced from [J.E.] had they simply ignored his presence and the fact of his criminal past, a potentiality graphically illustrated by the fact that [J.E.] had within *429 his reach at the time he was searched a fully operable handgun.” In re J.E., 907 A.2d 1114, 1125 (Pa.Super.2006) (McCaffery, J., dissenting).
Accordingly, I would reverse the order of the Superior Court.
Justices CASTILLE and EAKIN join this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4963648. Public record. Not legal advice.