holding protective sweep was justified because there was heightened risk that suspect might break away from police control because there were three men being detained and it was clear that they would have been permitted to return to vehicle if weapons were not discovered
How later courts described this case
- holding protective sweep was justified because there was heightened risk that suspect might break away from police control because there were three men being detained and it was clear that they would have been permitted to return to vehicle if weapons were not discovered
- “Incident to this stop, an officer may check the vehicle’s registration, the driver’s license and obtain any information necessary to enforce provisions of the motor vehicle code.”
- because defendant failed to raise allegation that search was unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution to the trial court, Superior Court “would be justified in deeming the claim waived.”
- protective search justified in part because defendant “was stopped at night in a rural area”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHNSON, J.,
concurring:
¶ 1 I join the opinion of my distinguished colleagues. I agree that in Commonwealth v. Morris, 537 Pa. 417 , 644 A.2d 721 (1994), our Supreme Court adopted the standard announced by the United States Supreme Court under which the police may conduct a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle for weapons. See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 , 103 S.Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (holding that protective search of passenger compartment was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of the United States Supreme Court). I also agree that the facts and circumstances of this case warranted a limited search of the vehicle for weapons. I write separately, however, to express my concern that the suppression court found credible Officer Alexander’s testimony that as he attempted to retrieve the knife located on the back seat, the seat, which was not bolted to the floor, simply “flipped up.” N.T. Suppression, 4/7/98, at 73. My own experience causes me to question seriously whether seats in modern cars can simply “flip up.” Although the court later retracted that finding in its opinion, as the majority noted, we are bound by the court’s credibility findings as stated on the record.