Com. v. Storck
| Decision Date | 18 March 1971 |
| Citation | 442 Pa. 197,275 A.2d 362 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Ronald Eugene STORCK, Appellee. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Allan D. Williams, Doylestown, for appellee.
Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, and BARBIERI, JJ.
Ronald Eugene Storck was taken into police custody in Honolulu, Hawaii, and then extradited to Pennsylvania to face criminal charges pending in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Police officers were subsequently sent to Honolulu to investigate Storck's activities during his stay in that area, and while there interviewed a Frank Carreria, who at the time was living on a sixty-five foot power boat. Carreira told the officers, that before his arrest Storck had manifested an intention to purchase the Carreira boat, and before leaving for New York purportedly to obtain the necessary money, had 'stored' in a room on the boat a quantity of items, including two suit cases, three or four boxes and a duffel bag. Two days later, the officers returned to the boat without a search warrant and, after telling Carreira that they had 'a right to these items' were 'allowed' by Carreira to take possession of the suit cases, boxes and duffel bag. Later, upon opening these items the police discovered enclosed therein a series of articles which the Commonwealth planned to use against Storck in the prosecution of the criminal charges pending against him in Bucks County. A timely pre-trial motion to suppress this evidence was filed, and after a hearing the court below granted the motion. The Commonwealth filed this appeal. We affirm.
There is no claim that probable cause existed to warrant a seizure of the suppressed evidence, but the Commonwealth contends that the evidentiary use thereof is constitutionally permissible because the constitutional protection against an unreasonable search and seizure was waived. The burden of proving such a waiver rests upon the asserting party. Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968).
The Commonwealth first asserts that such a waiver was established through the testimony of Carreira that he gave permission to the police to take possession of the suit cases, boxes and duffel bag. For the purpose of this opinion, it is unnecessary to decide whether this permission was validly obtained or was binding on Storck as far as the containers themselves are concerned. But see, Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969), and United States ex rel. Cabey v. Mazurkiewicz, 431 F.2d 839 (3d Cir. 1970). See also, 70 Dick.L.Rev. 510 (1966) and 36 Temple Law Quarterly 95 (1962). What we must decide is, assuming Carreira also gave a valid permission or consent to the police to open these containers and seize the articles enclosed therein, did this bind Storck. We conclude not.
The suit cases, boxes and duffel bag were merely 'stored' on Carriera's boat. His possession was for a limited purpose, and somewhat akin to that of a bank which rents boxes in its safety box vault for the 'storage' of its customer's valuables. Carreira had no authority to open the containers or to use them for his own purposes such as in Frazier v. Cupp, supra, nor do the facts establish that Storck relinquished...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Page
... ... Items 'stored' with another are in the custodian's possession for a limited purpose, somewhat as when a bank rents boxes in its safe deposit box vault for the 'storage' of its customers' valuables. Commonwealth v. Storck, 442 Pa. 197, 200, 275 A.2d 362, 364 (1971). The custodian's ability to consent turns upon evidence of his authority to open the container or to use it for his own purposes, as in Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969), or on evidence that the owner relinquished or ... ...
- Com. v. Latshaw