Pubdate: Tue, 29 Aug 2000
Source: Morning Call (PA)
Copyright: 2000 The Morning Call Inc.
Contact:  http://www.mcall.com/
Author: Hope Yen, The Associated Press

CONSENT SEARCHES RULED INVALID IF DRIVERS COERCED

One Case Came From Monroe County Stop That Uncovered Marijuana.

HARRISBURG -- Police who complete a routine traffic stop cannot conduct a 
separate search of the vehicle afterward if the driver consents to the 
search in the belief that he is being detained, the Pennsylvania Supreme 
Court ruled Monday in a pair of cases.

In the cases from Monroe and Cumberland counties, the defendants argued 
that marijuana found in their cars was inadmissible as evidence because 
police continued to detain them after the completion of a traffic stop. 
That illegal detention made their search consent constitutionally invalid, 
they said.

But police in both cases countered that they requested a search only after 
indicating -- either through words or actions -- that the drivers were free 
to go if they wished. The drivers' willingness to stay indicated that their 
interactions with police were purely voluntary, officers said.

In its decisions Monday, the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of 
defendant Diana E. Freeman of Monroe County but against Brett E. Strickler 
of Cumberland County. It reasoned that officers' actions in Freeman's case 
amounted to improper coercion while in Strickler's case they did not.

"A central consideration will be whether the objective circumstances would 
demonstrate to a reasonable citizen that he is no longer subject to 
domination by police," stated Justice Thomas G. Saylor, in writing for the 
majority in the Strickler case.

In the Freeman case, a trooper stopped Freeman's car on Interstate 80 in 
Monroe County in 1995 after she and another car appeared to be switching 
lanes in a "cat and mouse" fashion. Both were pulled over at the same time 
by two state troopers.

Though Freeman denied traveling with the other car, occupants of the other 
car claimed otherwise as the two troopers questioned both drivers.

Still, the trooper who pulled Freeman over returned her license and told 
her she was free to leave. As he returned to his patrol car, however, he 
changed his mind and doubled back. After some further questioning, the 
trooper ordered her out of the car and then asked for consent to search the 
vehicle.

In ruling that the trooper's continued questioning amounted to an illegal 
detention, the court reasoned that "the trooper's subsequent actions were 
inconsistent with his statement to Freeman that she was free to leave. ... 
Most significantly, (he) asked her to step out of the vehicle prior to the 
request for consent."

In the Strickler case, a pair of state police cars stopped behind a parked 
car in Upper Allen Township in 1995 when a trooper saw two men nearby. 
After the trooper checked their licenses, he thanked them for their 
cooperation and began returning to his cruiser.

The trooper then turned around and asked Strickler if he could search his 
car. After Strickler hesitated, the trooper advised him he could refuse. 
After the trooper asked again, Strickler consented.

In holding that the continued questioning was proper, Saylor reasoned that 
the trooper signaled that Strickler was free to leave once he thanked 
Strickler for his cooperation and began walking away.

"Moreover, the officer confined his subsequent conduct and conformed his 
requests in a manner consistent with a consensual encounter and expressly 
advised Strickler of his right to refuse consent," Saylor stated.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D