Commonwealth v. Mistler, et al. (Concurring Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-49-2006] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellant : : : v. : : : DOUGLAS MISTLER, : : Appellee : : No. 154 MAP 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellant : : : v. : : : JOANNA OLIVER, : : Appellee : : No. 155 MAP 2005 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered January 27, 2005 at No. 1233 EDA 2004, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Criminal Division, entered April 28, 2004, at No. 3416-03. ARGUED: April 5, 2006 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered January 27, 2005 at No. 1235 EDA 2004, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Criminal Division, entered April 28, 2004 at No. 3417-03. ARGUED: April 5, 2006 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellant : : : v. : : : PATRICK LUDDY, : : Appellee : : No. 156 MAP 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellant : : : v. : : : STACEY GILLESPIE, : : Appellee : : No. 157 MAP 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellant : : : v. : : : KALI WARREN, : : Appellee : : No. 158 MAP 2005 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered January 27, 2005 at No. 1238 EDA 2004, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Criminal Division, entered April 28, 2004 at No. 3199-03. ARGUED: April 5, 2006 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered January 27, 2005 at No. 1239 EDA 2004, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Criminal Division, entered April 28, 2004 at No. 3284-03. ARGUED: April 5, 2006 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered January 27, 2005 at No. 1240 EDA 2004, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Criminal Division, entered April 28, 2004 at No. 3413-03. ARGUED: April 5, 2006 [J-49-2006] - 2 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellant : : : v. : : : PAUL MUDD, : : Appellee : : No. 159 MAP 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellant : : : v. : : : HILLARY KOZAK, : : Appellee : : No. 160 MAP 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellant : : : v. : : : ELISE STERBINSKY, : : Appellee : : No. 161 MAP 2005 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered January 27, 2005 at No. 1249 EDA 2004, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Criminal Division, entered April 28, 2004 at No. 3405-03. ARGUED: April 5, 2006 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered January 27, 2005 at No. 1250 EDA 2004, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Criminal Division, entered April 28, 2004 at No. 4108-03. ARGUED: April 5, 2006 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered January 27, 2005 at No. 1251 EDA 2004, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Criminal Division, entered April 28, 2004 at No. 3315-03. ARGUED: April 5, 2006 [J-49-2006] - 3 CONCURRING OPINION MADAME JUSTICE BALDWIN DECIDED: December 27, 2006 I join the majority opinion. I agree that there was no reasonable suspicion to detain the Appellees. It is clear from the record that the officers investigating the party lacked reasonable suspicion that any of the Appellees were consuming alcohol in violation of the underage drinking statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6308(a). I write separately because I find, as the Superior Court found, the analysis to resolve the instant matter need only encompass a review of reasonable suspicion. [A] seizure that is less intrusive than a traditional arrest, in order to be reasonable, must ordinarily be supported by reasonable suspicion, based upon objective facts, that the individual is involved in criminal activity. Commonwealth v. Beaman, 583 Pa. 636, 642-43, 880 A.2d 578, 582 (2005). Indeed, we have noted that the United States Supreme Court emphasiz[ed] the centrality of the individualized suspicion requirement [in] Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, when it established the reasonable suspicion exception in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 n.18, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880 n.18, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Here, there are no such objective facts in the record to indicate the officers had individualized reasonable suspicion. As such, this matter presents no cause to address suspicionless, general searches or to engage in analysis of a different standard applied to large groups detained without individualized suspicion. [J-49-2006] - 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.