PA Superior Court decisions clarify reasonable suspicion and its impact on drug investigations
Key Takeaway: Two recent Pennsylvania Superior Court decisions, Commonwealth v. Phinn and Commonwealth v. Coles, clarify when police officers have reasonable suspicion to investigate drug use or possession in Pennsylvania. These cases provide critical guidance on how marijuana odor, smoking behavior, and traffic stop observations can lawfully justify investigative detentions under Pennsylvania and federal law.
Commonwealth v. Phinn: How the Medical Marijuana Act Affects Police Stops in Pennsylvania
Key Takeaway: The Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) does not protect all marijuana users from police investigation.
Facts of the case
In January 2024, York City police officers smelled burnt marijuana coming from the defendant as he walked down the street. An officer saw the defendant holding a smoking device and observed smoke coming from his person. The defendant admitted he had smoked earlier and later acknowledged he had more marijuana and no medical marijuana card.
Before trial, Phinn filed a motion to suppress the recovered evidence on the grounds that police did not have reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative detention.
The issue on appeal
The sole appellate claim was whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant. The facts relied upon by police to conduct the Terry stop, or investigatory detention, were simply:
- The odor of burnt marijuana
- Observations of the defendant holding a smoking device that was emitting smoke
This claim challenged the legality of the investigative detention under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Understanding the Court’s Decision
The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for possession of marijuana, upholding the Trial Court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress.
The officer smelled burnt marijuana, which is a notably stronger scent than vaporized marijuana, an important distinction under the law. He also saw smoke, reasonably suggesting illegal smoking and not lawful medical use.
Importantly, the MMA does not permit smoking marijuana, only vaporized marijuana usage. In Phinn, the burnt odor was a major clue that the defendant’s marijuana was, in fact, unlawful. Given the fact that he was holding a smoking device actively emitting smoke, police inferred that the unlawful marijuana usage was happening at that moment. This justified a brief stop for police to determine whether criminal activity was in progress.
The Superior Court held that these facts were enough to support the finding that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant to investigate the legality of his marijuana use. While marijuana odor alone is not enough to stop someone due to the Medical Marijuana Act (MMA), burnt marijuana and observed smoking behavior support reasonable suspicion.
Commonwealth v. Coles: When a Traffic Stop Turns Into a Drug Investigation
Key Takeaway: The Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled that if police officers uncover facts that provide reasonable suspicion during a routine traffic stop, they can investigate potential illegal drug use or possession.
Facts of the case
On August 9, 2023, a Pennsylvania State Police trooper stopped a gray Infiniti sedan because of (1) illegal window tint and (2) the car drove in the left lane for over two miles without passing. The vehicle was registered to a woman, but the driver and lone occupant was a man named Louis Leon Coles. He presented a Maryland license. At first, the trooper told Coles he would “do his best” to issue only a warning. But as the interaction continued, several details caught the trooper’s attention:
- Multiple air fresheners inside the car
- His moist, shaking hands and increasing nervousness
- Travel from Allentown, which the trooper identified as a “source city” for narcotics
- A criminal history involving narcotics (and possibly firearms)
- Incomplete or misleading answers about that history
The trooper testified that these factors raised concerns based on his training and experience. When asked, Coles denied consent to search the vehicle. The trooper then requested a canine unit, which arrived 45–50 minutes later. Ultimately, the dog alerted to the presence of narcotics. Police obtained a search warrant and found 20 grams of crack cocaine, a razor blade with residue, and packaging materials that included small bags and rubber bands. Coles was charged with Possession With Intent to Deliver (PWID), drug paraphernalia, and two summary traffic offenses.
The issue on appeal
The defendant argued that the trooper did not have reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop and detain Coles beyond the time needed to process the traffic violation. The Trial Court had previously denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence uncovered from the canine sniff and subsequent search of the vehicle.
In the appeal, the defendant asked the Superior Court to consider whether the prolonged wait for the canine unit to arrive and for the officer to obtain a search warrant was unlawfully prolonged and outside the scope of a routine traffic stop.
Understanding the Court’s Decision
The recent decision from the Pennsylvania Superior Court offers a detailed look at how “reasonable suspicion” can evolve during an otherwise ordinary traffic stop, and why they ultimately upheld a prolonged detention and canine sniff.
The court emphasized a key principle: A stop becomes unlawful only if police extend it after completing the tasks tied to the traffic violation. However, a prolonged stop is lawful if reasonable suspicion of criminal activity arises first.
In this case, the trooper learned several suspicious facts before finishing the traffic‑related tasks:
- The illegal tint and multiple air fresheners
- Coles’s escalating nervousness
- His misleading statements about his criminal history
- His travel from a known source city
Taken together, these factors created a reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking, justifying the extended detention and canine sniff.
What These Rulings Mean for Drug Charges and Appeals in PA
While the Medical Marijuana Act protects certain aspects of marijuana consumption from police investigation, it does not prevent police from investigating if certain factors are met. Importantly, smoking marijuana is not covered under the act. Therefore, the presence of smoke or the odor of burning marijuana may provide police with reasonable suspicion to justify investigating the legality of marijuana use.
Additionally, a routine traffic stop can evolve into an investigation if police observe and articulate reasons that would support a conclusion that criminal activity is afoot, so long as they do not prolong the stop beyond finishing tasks related to the stop. These rulings clarify which circumstances police officers in Pennsylvania may lawfully consider when determining whether reasonable suspicion exists to investigate suspected illegal drug use or possession.
Facing drug charges or filing an appeal in Philadelphia?
If police relied on marijuana odor, a traffic stop, or a canine sniff, you may have grounds to challenge the stop. If you are facing criminal drug charges or want to appeal your conviction, we can help. Call John F. McCaul for a free consultation to discuss the facts of your case. With years of criminal defense experience in Philadelphia, John will develop the best legal strategy to fight your charges.
Share This Story
John F. McCaul
Related Articles and Topics
Are Google searches private in Pennsylvania? PA Supreme Court’s Ruling in Commonwealth v. Kurtz Key Takeaway: In Pennsylvania, people using standard search engines, such as Google or ChatGPT, [...]
PA Superior Court decisions clarify reasonable suspicion and its impact on drug investigations Key Takeaway: Two recent Pennsylvania Superior Court decisions, Commonwealth v. Phinn and Commonwealth v. Coles, [...]
SUPPRESSION ALERT: Commonwealth v. Anthony Lewis (2025) Key Takeaway: The PA Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed that the Commonwealth must meet the burden of proving an area is “high [...]
CASE ALERT: Commonwealth v. Seth Jason Reich (2025) Key Takeaway: Specific and discrete appellate arguments must be raised, developed, and preserved at the trial court. In this Pennsylvania Superior [...]
In a recent ruling from the Pennsylvania Superior Court, criminal defense lawyers now have clearer guidance around what evidence is admissible, or not, regarding a victim’s previous sexual activity. Case [...]
Under state law, Pennsylvania homicide charges are categorized into different degrees based on the circumstances and intent behind the act. The homicide classifications help determine the severity of the crime [...]
