Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Bruce A. LATSHAW, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1976-09-27
Citations: 242 Pa. Super. 233
Docket Number: No. 1371
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Bruce A. LATSHAW, Appellant.
Judges: Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT, and SPAETH, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 242
Pages: 233–240

Head Matter:
363 A.2d 1246
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Bruce A. LATSHAW, Appellant.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Sept. 27, 1976.
William F. Donovan, State College, for appellant.
C. Kent Price, Asst. Dist. Atty., State College, for ap-pellee.
Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT, and SPAETH, JJ.

Opinion:
VAN der VOORT, Judge:
Appeal is taken to our Court from judgment of sentence rendered following a September 5,1974, trial before Judge R. Paul Campbell, without a jury. Appellant had been arrested, charged With, and indicted for Violation of "The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act", section 13(a) (30). A motion to suppress evidence of criminality seized prior to arrest had béen filed and denied prior to trial. Appellant was adjudged guilty and sentenced to pay costs and a fine of $2,500.00 and to un dergo imprisonment in the Centre County jail for not less than one nor more than twenty-three months.
The facts show that on or about November of 1972, Miss Minnie Bubb rented a portion of her house to a Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hinds, who are her niece and husband. The lease was oral, in an amount of $100.00 per month including utilities. It is both her and Mr. Hinds' uncon-tradicted testimony that Miss Bubb permitted the Hinds the use of her nearby barn, but that such was gratuitous only and not a part of the lease. In fact, the Hinds as well as others had gratuitously made use of this barn before November of 1972.
Mr. Hinds testified to an arrangement between him and appellant whereby Hinds permitted appellant use of the loft of the barn for storage of certain bulk items, and was paid $75.00 per shipment. It was Hinds' permission alone under which appellant operated.
On or about July of 1973, Miss Bubb, having noticed strangers in and about the barn but making no inquiry, went to the immediate vicinity of that building and spotted a quantity of greenish "weeds". Subsequently, with her sister, she entered the barn, found a paper bag of these "weeds", and called the State Police. Miss Bubb gave her permission to the State Police for them to search the barn, wherein 76 pounds of marijuana (later proved to be so) was found in seven cartons and two footlockers. Other material used in the curing and packaging of marijuana was found and seized.
Appellant now argues that the warrantless search of the bam and consequent seizure should be proscribed for the reason that his permission to use the bam came from a lessee of the structure, which lessee had an expectation that his use of the building would be protected from war-rantless searches. Appellant argues that his rights, as well as interest to contest the search and seizure, stem from lessee Hinds' rights, and he calls himself a guest or invitee of the lessee. Appellant further argues that the lower court erred in opining that the "joint control doctrine" applies in part, i. e., that both Miss Bubb and Hinds had control of the barn to the end that Miss Bubb could grant permission to search. Appellant argues that Miss Bubb never used the structure and thereby had relinquished control of it and consequently had no authority to grant permission to search.
A thorough study of the testimony of this case leads us to the conclusion that Hinds had only a gratuitous license to use part of the barn. Miss Minnie Bubb, owner, never relinquished any indicia of custody or control over the barn. She was clearly within her rights to allow individuals to use the barn and to make whatever arrangements she chose to that end. Not only did she'liave the right of ownership but also she was a joint user of the structure, and under the authority of Commonwealth v. Kontos, 442 Pa. 343, 276 A.2d 830 (1971), the joint user or custodian can consent to a search. Whatever tights Hinds had to the Fourth Amendment protection of his goods in the barn, or of the goods there subject to his custody, may be lost by means of the consent to search as given by the joint user. Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 88 S.Ct. 2120, 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1968). The facts as well may give rise to the conclusion that the barn was in the exclusive control of Miss Bubb, she not having leased it to anyone. Her consent to search her property thus waives the requirement of a search warrant. The holding of Commonwealth v. Platon, 455 Pa. 258, 312 A.2d 29 (1973), is inapposite in that Miss Bubb did not know who might be the owner of the cartons, footlockers, and materiel. Where such knowledge is lacking, it is unreasonable to expect the police to be able to frame a search warrant. The consent of the owner to the search is valid, as it was in Commonwealth v. Anderson, 208 Pa.Super. 323, 222 A.2d 495 (1966).
Holding that Miss Bubb's consent to search was valid, and the seizure of contraband proper, we find that Hinds' use of the bam was not such as to give rise to a Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure in him alone. Holding thus, we need not address the further argument as to appellant's standing to raise the issue of allegedly invalid search and seizure.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
HOFFMAN, J., files a dissenting opinion in which SPAETH, J., joins.
. Act of 1972, April 14, P.L. 233, § 13, 35 P.S. § 780.113(a)(30>