Commonwealth v. Turpin

• Decision Date: 26 September 2019
• Docket Number: No. 45 MAP 2018,45 MAP 2018
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Dylan Scott TURPIN, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

216 A.3d 1055

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee
v.
Dylan Scott TURPIN, Appellant

No. 45 MAP 2018

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: May 15, 2019
Decided: September 26, 2019

OPINION

JUSTICE DOUGHERTY

We granted discretionary review to determine whether a search warrant for an entire multi-bedroom residence shared by appellant, Dylan Scott Turpin, and his roommate, Benjamin Kato Irvin, was constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution¹ and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution² even though the warrant was premised solely on the activity of Irvin. We conclude police had probable cause to search the entire residence and therefore the warrant was constitutionally

216 A.3d 1058

permissible. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Superior Court.

On December 4, 2014, Detective Trenton Mellott of the Cumberland County Drug Task Force began investigating Irvin based on information received from a confidential informant regarding the sale of heroin. Affidavit of Probable Cause 2/19/15 at 1. Detective Mellott contacted Irvin's parole officer who informed him Irvin was residing at 105 E. Green Street in Mechanicsburg, and appellant also seemed to be living at that address. Id. Based on this information, Detective Mellott conducted surveillance of the single family residence located at this address over the next few months and observed an unusually high number of individuals making short visits there. Id. at 2.³

In mid-February 2016, Detective Mellott interviewed a second confidential informant who stated he had been purchasing heroin from Irvin on a regular basis and had bought heroin from Irvin at the Green Street residence. Id. As this information had been corroborated by his surveillance, Detective Mellott arranged for the confidential informant to conduct a controlled buy of heroin from Irvin. Id. While the confidential informant was arranging to meet Irvin at a nearby business, Detective Mellott surveilled the Green Street residence and observed multiple individuals enter and then quickly exit, activity which Detective Mellott believed was indicative of drug dealing. Id. Detective Mellott then observed two people exit the residence and enter a black Cadillac that Irvin was known to drive. Id. at 1-2. Detective Rodney Temple, who was surveilling the location of the controlled buy, observed the same black Cadillac arrive at the buy location. Id. at 2. A male and female then exited the Cadillac, the male conducted a hand-to-hand transaction with an unknown individual, and the male instructed the confidential informant to enter the business. Id. At this time, Detective Christopher Collare entered the business with the confidential informant and positively identified Irvin as the male with whom the confidential informant interacted. Id. The detectives observed Irvin and the unknown female get back into the black Cadillac, drive to the Green Street residence, and enter the house. Id. The confidential informant then provided Detective Mellott with ten blue bags of heroin, stamped "Blue Magic," purchased from Irvin. Id. ; N.T. 3/24/16 at 12.

Based on the above, Detective Mellott obtained a warrant to search "the residence at 105 E. Green St[,] ... a single family townhouse" for heroin, drug paraphernalia, proceeds from illegal drug sales, and cellphones owned or possessed by Irvin. Application for Search Warrant and Authorization 2/19/16 at 1.

On February 21, 2015, the search warrant was executed and a special response team cleared the building — a two story house containing a living room and kitchen on the first floor and two bedrooms and one bathroom on the second floor — of all

216 A.3d 1059

individuals, including appellant. N.T. 8/11/15 at 15-16, 18; N.T. 3/23/16 at 24. Appellant was placed into a vehicle by Sergeant Brian Curtis of the Mechanicsburg Police Department and the two discussed the living arrangements at the residence. Id. at 16. Appellant told Sergeant Curtis he and Irvin both lived there, splitting the rent, and each occupying one of the two bedrooms. Id. at 16-17. Thereafter, Sergeant Curtis brought appellant back into the house so he could retrieve shoes from his bedroom, which appellant described as the bedroom on the right. Id. at 17. Sergeant Curtis observed the door to appellant's bedroom was open and unlocked, there was no evidence appellant had ever placed a padlock on the bedroom door, and there was not a room number or mailbox on the outside of the bedroom door. Id. at 22.

Officers proceeded to search the entire house, including appellant's bedroom. N.T. 3/24/16 at 14-15. Recovered from appellant's bedroom were, inter alia , a Glock firearm, ammunition, six bags of heroin including one blue bag stamped "Blue Magic," a bag of marijuana, and $902 in cash. Id. at 15, 21-22, 27-28, 56. Police also recovered 37 bags of heroin, some stamped "Blue Magic," and $1,000 cash from Irvin's bedroom as well as 200 bags of heroin from the living room. Id. at 15, 18-20, 56. On March 10, 2015, police returned to the Green Street residence and recovered 80 bags of heroin from the second floor bathroom, which was adjacent to appellant's bedroom. Id. at 73-74. Based on the above, appellant was arrested and charged with, inter alia , three counts of possession of a controlled substance, and one count each of conspiracy to commit possession with the intent to deliver and receiving stolen property.⁴

Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion to suppress claiming, inter alia , the warrant was overbroad because it did not limit the specific areas to be searched to those under the control of Irvin and the warrant was improperly executed because the police were made aware of its overbroad nature from appellant's discussions with Sergeant Curtis. N.T. 8/11/15 at 4. The suppression court held a hearing at which Sergeant Curtis testified as detailed above. Id. at 15-27. In addition to testimony from other police officers, see id. at 5-14, 27-35, 43-48, appellant also testified at the hearing. Id. at 35-42. Relevant to the claim discussed herein, appellant testified he told Sergeant Curtis of the living arrangements at the Green Street residence, he and Irvin occupied separate bedrooms at the residence, he shut his bedroom door when he was not home, and Irvin was not permitted to enter his bedroom without permission. Id. at 35-38.

The court ultimately denied appellant's motion to suppress. In doing so, the suppression court held the warrant itself was not overbroad, finding "[a] search warrant to a residence need not specify each and every room of a residence to be searched and in fact can authorize a search of an entire residence." Suppression Court Opinion 9/24/15 at 4, citing Commonwealth v. Waltson , 555 Pa. 223, 724 A.2d 289, 290 (1998) ("where there is probable cause to believe that contraband is located within a particular room of a single unit house, Article [I], Section 8 [of the Pennsylvania Constitution] does not preclude a search of the entire residence"). The court further determined the search warrant was not improperly executed, finding "[t]here was no need for police to distinguish between what rooms were private versus what rooms were public; the warrant authorized

216 A.3d 1060

a search of the entire residence without distinction." Id.

Appellant proceeded to a jury trial, after which he was convicted of the aforementioned crimes. The court later sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of one year less one day to two years less two days of county imprisonment to be followed by three years of probation. N.T. 5/10/16 at 4-5.

On appeal to the Superior Court, appellant renewed his claim the warrant was overbroad and his suppression motion should have been granted. Appellant contended the facts of his case were distinguishable from those in Waltson. Specifically, appellant argued all the areas searched in Waltson were under the control of the resident who was the subject of the search warrant, but in this case the search was expanded into appellant's bedroom, which was a separate living unit solely under the control of a resident who was not the subject of the search warrant. Appellant's Superior Court Brief at 17. The panel rejected this argument, finding Waltson and Commonwealth v. Korn , 139 A.3d 249 (Pa. Super. 2016) — a case with facts analogous to the case at hand — controlled the issue because there was no indication in the record that appellant's bedroom constituted a separate living unit. Commonwealth v. Turpin , 1656 MDA 2016, unpublished memorandum at 9, 2018 WL 831889 (Pa. Super. Filed Feb. 13, 2018). The panel premised its holding on the facts appellant's bedroom did not have a separate mailbox, address, or private entrance and appellant himself testified he would only shut the bedroom door when he left the residence, rather than lock it. Id.

We accepted review to address the following question raised by appellant, which was rephrased for purposes of clarity:

Does a search warrant for a multi-bedroom residence shared by adults permit police to search the entire residence and all bedrooms within, where the warrant and affidavit of probable cause are premised on the activity of only one occupant in that multi-occupant residence who does not have complete control over the private bedrooms of his

...