Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 2016 Pa. Super. LEXIS 494 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016)

Close encounters of the Fourth kind.

The Superior Court decides that asking for identification is not in and of itself an investigative detention. Police were on routine patrol in a problem area when they witnessed Baldwin, who was in a parking lot, pass behind a van. Believing he had discarded something, the officers pulled into the lot without lights or sirens and searched for contraband, but they found nothing. They then approached Baldwin and requested his identification, which he provided, and which also led the officers to discover multiple traffic related warrants. Baldwin was subsequently arrested, and the police found narcotics on his person. However, Baldwin sought to suppress the stop, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion and that taking his ID constituted a detention. The court disagreed and the judgment was affirmed by the Superior Court. The totality of the circumstances, namely that, although the police had Baldwin’s identification, they entered the lot without lights and sirens, did not block the exit and approached Baldwin only after searching for contraband, simply did not amount to a physical force or show of authority that would elevate the situation from a mere encounter to an investigatory detention. Accordingly, each fact of an encounter is crucial in evaluating when Fourth Amendment rights are triggered.

 

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2016. Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2016 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.