Justices Limit Scope of Consent to Vehicle Searches During Traffic Stops

Photo: Shutterstock.com

In a case in which a suspect who consented to a vehicle search was then made to wait 40 minutes until a K-9 Unit arrived to conduct a sniff search, a deeply split Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the scope of a motorist's consent is governed by "what a reasonable person would have understood by the exchange that occurred between the officer and the suspect."

In Commonwealth v. Valdivia, the justices ruled 4-3 to reverse a unanimous Superior Court decision upholding a Centre County trial judge's denial of defendant Randy Valdivia’s motion to suppress all evidence seized from his vehicle during the traffic stop.

The Superior Court affirmed Valdivia’s judgment of sentence of 11-and-a-half to 23 months’ imprisonment followed by 30 days’ probation for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia.

But Justice Christine Donohue, writing for the Supreme Court majority, said the facts of the case showed Valdivia could not have reasonably been expected to understand that his consent to a vehicle search would include a canine sniff conducted 40 minutes later.

"Under the circumstances of this nighttime roadside vehicle stop when Valdivia’s consent was sought and received, a reasonable person would have expected the two police officers at the scene to conduct an immediate hand search of the vehicle," Donohue said in the Oct. 17 majority opinion. "Conversely, our objective review of the exchange between Valdivia and the state trooper, as well as the surrounding circumstances, leads us to conclude that a reasonable person in Valdivia’s position would not have understood his consent to encompass a search conducted by a drug sniffing dog that would occur 40 minutes after he gave his consent. Valdivia gave a general consent to two human police officers to search his car. The search that occurred exceeded the scope of that consent."

Donohue was joined by Chief Justice Thomas Saylor, along with Justices David Wecht and Kevin Dougherty.

According to court documents, Valdivia was pulled over on Interstate 80 by a Pennsylvania State Police trooper after he was observed quickly changing lanes without signaling. He was arrested following discovery of marijuana in his car during the traffic stop. After his motion to suppress was denied, the case proceeded to a nonjury trial in which Centre County Court of Common Pleas President Judge Thomas King Kistler found Valdivia guilty of all charges.

Valdivia contended on appeal that he did not voluntarily consent to a vehicle search, but the Superior Court rejected that argument in large part because he read and signed a consent form.

Valdivia further argued, however, that even if he did consent to a search, the evidence against him should have been suppressed because a canine sniff of packages in his vehicle exceeded the scope of what he agreed to. The Superior Court again disagreed.

Donohue, like the lower courts, found that Valdivia's consent was given voluntarily, saying the high court's "review of the record finds no support for the overt and intentional misrepresentation by police that Valdivia claims occurred."

But Donohue added that Valdivia's consent was "for two human officers to conduct a search of his vehicle."

Justice Debra Todd penned a concurring and dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Max Baer and Sallie Updyke Mundy. Todd agreed with the majority that Valdivia's consent was voluntary but argued that the defendant had several opportunities after giving his initial consent to limit its scope, but failed to do so even as he waited for 40 minutes for the K-9 unit to arrive and then observed the canine sniff being conducted.

"This principle of considering all the circumstances surrounding the exchange between the citizen and police is consistent with the underlying premise that the scope of a search is within the sole authority of the citizen who can limit it as he or she deems proper, and, indeed, can terminate the search at any time, and the police must scrupulously honor the scope of, or termination of, that consented-to search," Todd said. "Indeed, the majority’s approach would countenance a defendant, who is in a clear position to object and observes a violation of the scope of the search in plain sight, to sit idly by and only later complain."

Mundy penned her own concurring and dissenting opinion, joining Todd's opinion in full and adding her view that the majority "incorrectly focuses on Valdivia’s subjective knowledge, engages in fact finding, and creates a new category for consent in canine searches."

Counsel for Valdivia, Marc A. Decker of Decker Bradburn in State College, said he was happy with the ruling.

"It took a long way to get to common sense," Decker said of the case, adding that he thought the high court's rationale could potentially apply to cases dealing with the scope of consent for other forms of forensic testing.

Matthew Metzger of the Centre County District Attorney’s Office couldn’t be reached for comment.

(Copies of the 44-page opinion in Commonwealth v. Valdivia, PICS No. 18-1295, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)