IN THE INTEREST OF: R. P., A MINOR, Appellant
No. 2208 WDA 2005 (2007 Pa. Super 37)

Facts of the Case:

On July 13, 2005 at approximately 2:45 p.m., Pittsburgh School Police Officers were informed of a fight on one of the school buses preparing to transport students home from Langley High School after a day of summer school.  The responding officers, finding R. P. and another young man involved in a fight, proceeded to break up the fight and escort R. P. and the other student back into the school building.  The officers told R.P., who was still being combative and was not cooperating with them, that he was going to be charged with disorderly conduct.  R. P. was taken to the school cafeteria, where one of the officers observed that he  “was being very fidgety” and another officer testified that R. P. acted suspiciously in continually grabbing his waistband and putting his hands in his pockets.

The officers testified that R. P.’s actions concerned them from the standpoint of their own physical safety.  They noted that while the school was equipped with metal detectors, these had been turned off since the school day had concluded; when R. P. was escorted back into the school building he had not, therefore, passed through a metal detector. The officers therefore frisked R. P. and during the pat-down, one of the officers asked him what was in his pocket.     R. P. proceeded to pull out a wad of money, which, upon examination by one of the officers, proved to contain a bag of marijuana in its center.

R. P. was charged with possession of a small amount of marijuana, 35 P.S. Section 780-113(a)(31), and adjudicated delinquent by the Family Court Juvenile Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.  R. P. appealed the refusal of the Court of Common Pleas to grant his motion to suppress the evidence seized by the school officers.

Decision of the Court:

A three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania unanimously affirmed the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas and upheld the adjudication of delinquency for the possession of a small amount of marijuana.

Basis for the Decision:

Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, individuals have a right against unreasonable searches and seizures.  As a general rule, the police may not search someone unless they have a search warrant or probable cause to make an arrest.  When a police officer is arresting a suspect, however, it is well-settled that police “may conduct a full custodial search of a suspect’s person”, Commonwealth v. Thompson, 778 A.2d 1215 (Pa. Super. 2001). In the present case, the Superior Court reviewed the evidence of R. P.’s behavior and concluded that using a totality of the circumstances test, the police were more than justified in believing they had probable cause to arrest R. P. for disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor of the third degree. The court concluded that since R. P. had been taken into custody by the police officers and was about to be arrested, the police had the right to search the suspect and seize any evidence they found on him.  Commonwealth v. Jackson, 907 A.2d 540 (Pa. Super. 2006).  The marijuana subsequently found by the police was therefore the product of a search incident to a lawful arrest and, therefore, is admissible in court.  Based on the case law and the Superior Court’s analysis of it, the suppression court was correct in denying R.P.’s motion to suppress.

Prepared by
Craig Niklaus,
Summer 2007.