Page 19 - PCPA Winter 2024 Bulletin Magazine

CHRIS BOYLE'S LEGAL UPDATE
suppression. N.T., Suppression, at 64. As explained,
infra, Jefferson held that Andersen has been overruled
by Kansas v. Glover, 589 U.S. 376, 378 (2020).
WINTER 2024 BULLETIN
- 5 -
J-S23012-24
raise a suspicion that the particular individual
being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing.
Id. at 386 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Here, Officer Dohan conducted a
traffic stop based on information
obtained during a BMV records
check that the registered owner
of the vehicle had a suspended
license. There was no additional
information to negate the
inference that the registered
owner of the vehicle was the
driver of the vehicle.
Thereafter, this Court, sitting en banc, applied Glov-
er in Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 256 A.3d 1242 (Pa.
Super. 2021). There, officers on routine patrol ran the
license plates of various vehicles and determined
that the registered owner of one of the vehicles had
an open warrant. Id. at 1245. While the officers were
attempting to validate the warrant, the vehicle pulled
over, and the officers pulled behind it and activated a
spotlight. Id. at 1245-46. The purpose of the stop [*8]
was for officers “to identify the driver and to investi-
gate whether he was the registered owner of the vehi-
cle, and thus the person for whom there was an arrest
warrant.” Id. at 1246.
This Court concluded that the defendant’s Fourth
Amendment challenge to the legality of the traffic stop
failed under Glover. See id. at 1248-51. We noted that
there were no additional factors to negate the officer’s
reasonable suspicion that the owner of the vehicle
was also the driver of the vehicle. Id. at 1250. After
consistent with Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution, and that Article I, Section 8 does not pro-
vide greater protection than the Fourth Amendment
standard established in Glover. See id. at 1251-1260.
Of importance, we noted, Andersen specifically raised
the question of whether Section 8 provided greater
protection than the Fourth Amendment. However, the
Andersen Court never reached that specific claim.
- 6 -
J-S23012-24
As it granted relief under the Fourth Amendment, it was
unnecessary for the Court to consider whether greater
protection existed under the Pennsylvania Constitu-
tion. As Andersen can only be understood to reflect
this Court’s interpretation of Fourth Amendment stan-
dards, we must conclude that [Andersen] has been
overruled by Glover, and provides no support for the
notion that Section 8 provides greater protection than
the Fourth Amendment in [*9] these circumstances.
Jefferson, 256 A.3d at 1255 (emphasis added). Thus,
Andersen no longer is good law, and the suppression
court’s reliance on it was in error.
Here, Officer Dohan conducted a traffic stop based on
information obtained during a BMV records check that
the registered owner of the vehicle had a suspended
license. There was no additional information to negate
the inference that the registered owner of the vehicle
was the driver of the vehicle.
See Glover, Salter, supra. Officer Dohan had reason-
able suspicion to conduct a traffic stop to determine
whether the registered owner who had a suspended
license was the person driving the vehicle. According-
ly, we conclude the court’s suppression of evidence
based upon its reliance on Andersen was an error of
law. We therefore reverse the order of the suppression
court and remand for further proceedings.
Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceed-
ings. Jurisdiction relinquished.
- 7 -
J-S23012-24
Date: 10/25/2024
- 8 -
extensive analysis, we also concluded that Glover is
19