Court Opinion

ID: 9752339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:59:55.537099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:53.226568
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Hoffman, J.:
In the instant case, the lower court correctly stated that “[t]here is no question that if Decker [an off-duty auxiliary police officer] was acting as an agent of sovereign authority the search and seizure of the [appellant’s] *229automobile located on the [appellant’s] premises would be unconstitutional and the evidence subsequently obtained would also be inadmissible in evidence against the [appellant].” Thus the critical issue is whether an off-duty auxiliary police officer is an agent of the state for purposes of constitutional analysis.
While I agree with the Majority’s statement of the case, I want to underscore several additional facts. The following is Decker’s suppression hearing testimony concerning his duties as a member of the Borough of Roaring Springs Police Department:
“Q. [by appellant’s counsel] : Now, with respect to your duties as a police officer, you indicate that you are an auxiliary police officer?
“A. [by Decker] : That is right.
“Q. Do you get paid by the hour?
“A. Right.
“Q. You’re on call at all times?
“A. No, not at all times, just whenever they need someone to help out they call us.
“Q. You wear a uniform?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Carry a gun?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Ride a squad car?
“A. Yes.
.. Q. So you’re on call pretty regularly aren’t you?
“A. Whenever they call us yes.”
Officer Decker was alerted that marijuana might have been contained in the newspaper as a result of training which he received in connection with his police work:
“Q. [by appellant’s counsel]: Well, what made you go in and look around in this car? His car was parked on the property?
“A. The car was at the edge of the woods and I seen this stuff wrapped up in paper. Alright, we was [sic] had *230a guy at the barracks that talked about marijuana. How it was wrapped and dried and so on and so forth and this was brought to my attention.”
Finally, the officer immediately brought one of the packages of marijuana, unopened, to his police superior, the Chief of Police in Roaring Springs. The Chief called the State Police; Decker was then told to take the suspected marijuana to State Police Barracks.
I agree that Decker was not on active duty on October 15, 1973.1 The Majority is, however, overly solicitous of relieving the auxiliary officer of the “staggering burdens which often accompany the job,” while it permits the abridgment of appellant’s fourth amendment rights. I do not suggest that an off-duty auxiliary officer is required to perform a duty to the public greater than that required of an ordinary citizen. Once the auxiliary officer does act, however, within the scope of his ordinary responsibility, relying on skills and training acquired while in state employment, I would hold that for constitutional purposes, he must act reasonably towards his fellow citizens. If the officer is not held to a reasonable standard of behavior, we permit a class of state-trained police officers to ferret out crime unconstrained by important constitutional guarantees.
Although the facts in the instant case are equivocal, I believe that Decker’s action amounted to police action. He was not merely a Sunday morning traffic officer; he was fully trained to perform normal police duties. The local police force apparently arranged lectures or training sessions on such subjects as drugs. Such training was instrumental in Decker’s discovery of the contraband in this instant case. Finally, it was Decker who carried the marijuana to the State Police barracks at the instruction *231of his police superior — an act totally inconsistent with the theory that Decker was a mere private citizen.2

. See Act of January 14, 1952, P.L. (1951) 2016, §5; 53 P.S. §735.

.For an alternative grounds for reversal, see Commonwealth v. Kozak, 233 Pa. Superior Ct. 348, 336 A.2d 387 (1975) (dissenting opinion by Jacobs, J., in which Hoffman and Spaeth, JJ., joined). On closely analogous facts, I joined Judge Jacobs’ opinion that even if the police did not initiate the original search, their participation before the completion of the search can be sufficient to require acquisition of a warrant before they become recipients of the fruits of the search.