[152]*152
OPINION OF THE COURT
FLAHERTY, Chief Justice.
The sole issue in this case is whether the warrantless stop by police of a car operated by suspects in a drug investigation was supported by probable cause.
The facts underlying this issue are as follows. In October of 1992 Hatboro police were informed by a confidential informant that one Richard Martin was selling methamphetamine, a controlled substance. As a result of their investigation, police determined that Anthony Constantino was probably the source of Martin’s supply, and as a result, they obtained a search warrant for 16 South Chester Avenue, Constantino’s residence. The warrant authorized a search for contraband, paraphernalia and drug records within the Constantino’s home, its outbuildings and curtilage and any vehicle or person at the premises.
Shortly before police arrived to execute the warrant, Anthony and Mary Constantino left their home, driving a pickup truck. Police who were assigned to keep the residence under surveillance followed them. Other police who were assigned to execute the search warrant had not yet arrived to conduct the search of the premises. Approximately two and a half miles from the Constantino’s home, the truck stopped at a stop sign. At that point, police exited their vehicle and approached the truck with guns drawn, one officer on each side of the truck. The officer on the passenger side opened the door and told the passenger, Mary Constantino, that he possessed a search warrant for her home and believed she was transporting methamphetamine. Ms. Constantino stated: “the dope is in my purse.” Ms. Constantino was then arrested and taken back to her home. The search at the Constantino residence, conducted pursuant to the warrant, disclosed various drug-related items, including 73.41 grams of methamphetamine. At that point, Mr. Constantino was also arrested.
The Constantinos were both convicted of fourteen counts of various drug charges and each was sentenced to seven to twenty years imprisonment. Timely appeals were taken and [153]*153although several issues were raised before the Superior Court, at issue on this appeal is only whether it was error for the trial court to fail to suppress evidence seized as a result of the stop of the truck.
The trial court determined that at the time of the stop of the truck, Mary Constanino was not under arrest. Further, it held that no questions were asked of her, and that police “merely approached the vehicle to inform the occupants that their house was being searched pursuant to a search warrant.” The trial court also determined that Mary Constanino volunteered the statement about drugs in her purse, and that based on this statement, the officer had probable cause to search the purse.
On appeal, the Superior Court held that in assessing the lawfulness of the intrusion into the Constantinos’ liberty when the truck was stopped, a major consideration was that a valid search warrant for the couple’s home had been issued. Since the affidavit in support of the warrant established that the couple were probably involved in drug activity, it was proper to detain them and transport them back to the house where the search was being conducted. The court based this conclusion on Commonwealth v. Reicherter, 317 Pa.Super. 256, 463 A.2d 1183 (1983), where Reicherter was detained as he was riding in a friend’s truck away from his residence immediately before a search of his residence was begun. Authorities possessed a search warrant for Reicherter’s home. He was stopped several blocks from his residence and a pistol was found after he was searched. Superior Court upheld both the stop and frisk of Reicherter citing Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981). In Summers the Supreme Court held that where officers executed a valid search warrant for a home and encountered its owner leaving the building to be searched, they were justified in requiring him to reenter the building for the duration of the search. The Superior Court also held that Mary Constantino consented to the search of her purse, thus eliminating the need for probable cause. According to the Superior Court, police did [154]*154not request a search and, notwithstanding the police use of drawn firearms, there was no coercion.
We granted allocatur to consider, as indicated earlier, whether Constantino’s vehicle was illegally stopped and whether Mary Constantino was illegally seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, thereby requiring suppression of all evidence seized arising from the search of Constantino’s purse.
In Commonwealth v. Melendez, 544 Pa. 323, 676 A.2d 226 (1996), this court considered a similar case. In Melendez, police were in the process of applying for a search warrant for the home of Melendez based on their belief that she and a companion were involved in illegal drug-related activity. Before the warrant was issued but while police had the property under surveillance, Melendez got in an automobile and drove away. Police followed Melendez and stopped her. They removed her from the car, searched her purse, where they found cash, a gun, and purported drug materials, and transported her back to her house, where they used her keys to gain entrance. They then held Melendez and another occupant of the house for approximately an hour until the warrant arrived. Melendez was stopped and searched, in essence, because she was a suspect in a felony investigation. We held that the stop and the search was impermissible under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
In Melendez, police observed no criminal activity on the part of Melendez as she entered or operated her car. In this case also, there is nothing of record to indicate that police observed any criminal activity as the Constantino’s entered or operated their pickup truck. The Constantinos, then, like Melendez, were stopped because they were suspects in a felony investigation.1
[155]*155The only distinction between the Melendez case and this case is that in this case the warrant had already been issued at the time of the stop, whereas in Melendez it had not. In both cases, however, the authority to stop, if such authority existed, must emanate from either the search warrant, from probable cause to believe the suspects were engaged in criminal activity, or from a limited seizure based on the suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.
The warrant provides no authority for the vehicle stop pursuant to its own terms, for it relates to the premises and things and persons found upon the premises. The stop was made two and a half miles from the premises.
With respect to authority for warrantless seizures, we stated in Melendez:
In sum, there are two circumstances in which warrantless seizures of a person are constitutionally permissible. The first is where police have probable cause to believe that a crime is being or is about to be committed. The second is that a limited seizure may be effected where there is a reasonable police belief that criminal activity is afoot. [Com. v.] Hicks, 434 Pa.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[152]*152
OPINION OF THE COURT
FLAHERTY, Chief Justice.
The sole issue in this case is whether the warrantless stop by police of a car operated by suspects in a drug investigation was supported by probable cause.
The facts underlying this issue are as follows. In October of 1992 Hatboro police were informed by a confidential informant that one Richard Martin was selling methamphetamine, a controlled substance. As a result of their investigation, police determined that Anthony Constantino was probably the source of Martin’s supply, and as a result, they obtained a search warrant for 16 South Chester Avenue, Constantino’s residence. The warrant authorized a search for contraband, paraphernalia and drug records within the Constantino’s home, its outbuildings and curtilage and any vehicle or person at the premises.
Shortly before police arrived to execute the warrant, Anthony and Mary Constantino left their home, driving a pickup truck. Police who were assigned to keep the residence under surveillance followed them. Other police who were assigned to execute the search warrant had not yet arrived to conduct the search of the premises. Approximately two and a half miles from the Constantino’s home, the truck stopped at a stop sign. At that point, police exited their vehicle and approached the truck with guns drawn, one officer on each side of the truck. The officer on the passenger side opened the door and told the passenger, Mary Constantino, that he possessed a search warrant for her home and believed she was transporting methamphetamine. Ms. Constantino stated: “the dope is in my purse.” Ms. Constantino was then arrested and taken back to her home. The search at the Constantino residence, conducted pursuant to the warrant, disclosed various drug-related items, including 73.41 grams of methamphetamine. At that point, Mr. Constantino was also arrested.
The Constantinos were both convicted of fourteen counts of various drug charges and each was sentenced to seven to twenty years imprisonment. Timely appeals were taken and [153]*153although several issues were raised before the Superior Court, at issue on this appeal is only whether it was error for the trial court to fail to suppress evidence seized as a result of the stop of the truck.
The trial court determined that at the time of the stop of the truck, Mary Constanino was not under arrest. Further, it held that no questions were asked of her, and that police “merely approached the vehicle to inform the occupants that their house was being searched pursuant to a search warrant.” The trial court also determined that Mary Constanino volunteered the statement about drugs in her purse, and that based on this statement, the officer had probable cause to search the purse.
On appeal, the Superior Court held that in assessing the lawfulness of the intrusion into the Constantinos’ liberty when the truck was stopped, a major consideration was that a valid search warrant for the couple’s home had been issued. Since the affidavit in support of the warrant established that the couple were probably involved in drug activity, it was proper to detain them and transport them back to the house where the search was being conducted. The court based this conclusion on Commonwealth v. Reicherter, 317 Pa.Super. 256, 463 A.2d 1183 (1983), where Reicherter was detained as he was riding in a friend’s truck away from his residence immediately before a search of his residence was begun. Authorities possessed a search warrant for Reicherter’s home. He was stopped several blocks from his residence and a pistol was found after he was searched. Superior Court upheld both the stop and frisk of Reicherter citing Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981). In Summers the Supreme Court held that where officers executed a valid search warrant for a home and encountered its owner leaving the building to be searched, they were justified in requiring him to reenter the building for the duration of the search. The Superior Court also held that Mary Constantino consented to the search of her purse, thus eliminating the need for probable cause. According to the Superior Court, police did [154]*154not request a search and, notwithstanding the police use of drawn firearms, there was no coercion.
We granted allocatur to consider, as indicated earlier, whether Constantino’s vehicle was illegally stopped and whether Mary Constantino was illegally seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, thereby requiring suppression of all evidence seized arising from the search of Constantino’s purse.
In Commonwealth v. Melendez, 544 Pa. 323, 676 A.2d 226 (1996), this court considered a similar case. In Melendez, police were in the process of applying for a search warrant for the home of Melendez based on their belief that she and a companion were involved in illegal drug-related activity. Before the warrant was issued but while police had the property under surveillance, Melendez got in an automobile and drove away. Police followed Melendez and stopped her. They removed her from the car, searched her purse, where they found cash, a gun, and purported drug materials, and transported her back to her house, where they used her keys to gain entrance. They then held Melendez and another occupant of the house for approximately an hour until the warrant arrived. Melendez was stopped and searched, in essence, because she was a suspect in a felony investigation. We held that the stop and the search was impermissible under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
In Melendez, police observed no criminal activity on the part of Melendez as she entered or operated her car. In this case also, there is nothing of record to indicate that police observed any criminal activity as the Constantino’s entered or operated their pickup truck. The Constantinos, then, like Melendez, were stopped because they were suspects in a felony investigation.1
[155]*155The only distinction between the Melendez case and this case is that in this case the warrant had already been issued at the time of the stop, whereas in Melendez it had not. In both cases, however, the authority to stop, if such authority existed, must emanate from either the search warrant, from probable cause to believe the suspects were engaged in criminal activity, or from a limited seizure based on the suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.
The warrant provides no authority for the vehicle stop pursuant to its own terms, for it relates to the premises and things and persons found upon the premises. The stop was made two and a half miles from the premises.
With respect to authority for warrantless seizures, we stated in Melendez:
In sum, there are two circumstances in which warrantless seizures of a person are constitutionally permissible. The first is where police have probable cause to believe that a crime is being or is about to be committed. The second is that a limited seizure may be effected where there is a reasonable police belief that criminal activity is afoot. [Com. v.] Hicks, 434 Pa. [153] at 160, 253 A.2d [276] at 279 [(1969)], interpreting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
544 Pa. at 328, 676 A.2d at 228. We have already stated that there was no probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed at the time the truck was stopped, and there is nothing of record to cause police to believe that criminal activity in the truck was afoot. There was, therefore, under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, no lawful basis for the stop of the truck pursuant to the search warrant, which was issued for the premises, or pursuant to the common law exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Since police had no authority to stop the Constantino vehicle, the admission of Mary Constantino that she had drugs in her purse provided no basis for the subsequent search of the purse, and the fruits of that search, therefore, must be suppressed. Since the methamphetamine found in Mary Con[156]*156stantino’s purse directly linked her to the larger quantity of methamphetamine found in the house, and her conviction may have been based in part on this improperly admitted evidence, the judgment of sentence is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
ZAPPALA, J., concurs in the result.
NEWMAN, J., files a dissenting opinion which is joined by CASTILLE, J.