Court Opinion

ID: 9734828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:47:22.188892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:51.473379
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Montgomery, J.:
I cannot agree that appellant was lawfully arrested. He did nothing except enter a building and depart from it fifteen minutes later. For this he was stopped, and bodily carried away by the police officers to the police station where he was charged with a misdemeanor. This certainly constitutes an arrest and being for a misdemeanor — lottery — the only justification for it was that it was committed in the presence of the officers. Commonwealth v. Rubin, 82 Pa. Super. 315. However, at the time of the arrest the officers saw nothing in the actions of appellant to constitute the commission of a crime; nothing, apparent, in his possession indicated the commission of a crime. Mere suspicion of the commission of a misdemeanor is not enough to justify an arrest without a warrant. 3 P.L.E., Arrest, § 4.
Further, I cannot subscribe to the other theory, relied on by the majority, that the evidence was found exposed and therefore was not secured as the result of an unreasonable search. This evidence either belonged to the prisoner and was “dislodged” from his person through his unlawful arrest, or it had no connection with him. In either instance it was not evidence to be used against him.
The lower court relied heavily on the opinion of this Court written by our President Judge RHODES in Commonwealth v. Polite, 190 Pa. Superior Ct. 329, 154 A. 2d 287; but I fail to see in that case sufficient support for its decision since no question was raised by that defendant as to the legality of his arrest.
*326Likewise in Haerr v. United States, 240 F. 2d 533, no arrest was made prior to finding the contraband.
The rules seem well established that an unlawful arrest cannot justify a search and seizure as an incident thereto, Worthington v. United States, 166 F. 2d 557; nor may an arrest be made as a pretext to search for evidence, United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S. 452, 52 S. Ct. 420, 76 L. Ed. 877.
In my opinion, both rules were violated in this case.
Our decision in Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 47, 182 A. 2d 295, is readily distinguishable from the present one. That case involved a felony of which the arresting officers had knowledge and there was reasonable and probable cause for suspecting the defendant-appellant therein.
I would suppress the evidence in this case and discharge the appellant-defendant in the absence of any other evidence on which to sustain his conviction.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.