Pennsylvania vs Newton

Svetlin Kozhuharov BUS 210

Pennsylvania vs Newton

What happened

The police were monitoring the Red Carpet Motel because it was believed to be a high drug traffic area. They were investigating a person called Carl Leverne Newton. The police suspected him in selling illegally drugs from his motel room. On February 5, 2005 around 9:30 they saw a woman getting out of Newton’s room. They stopped her and she admitted that she had just bought drugs from Newton. Afterwards police officers Michael G. Boyle, Jr., and Jeremy Sereyka knocked at Newton’s door. The police did not immediately enter the room. First they asked if Newton could enter the hallway. Only after the allowance of the suspect he voluntarily got into the hallway. During that exchange Officer Boyle saw an item placed on the table inside the hotel room. The object was cylindrical and seemed to be burned at the bottom. There was also a white substance caked on the side. Officer Boyle recognized that object as a measuring cup used to heat cocaine. Following this observation based on the plain view doctrine the officers arrested Newton. Officer Sereyka then transported Newton to the police headquarter. Police officer Boyle entered Newton’s room and seized the cup. In the room there was another person called Rose Yanko. The police officer asked him for consent to search the room but Yanko refused because the motel room was not his own. Only after 20 to 30 minutes later police officer Boyle received a call from police officer Sereyka saying that Newton signed a consent which allowed the police to search his room.

First Court

Newton turned to court stating that the search of his motel room was illegal. Thus the evidence collected by officer Boyle would be considered not credible. Despite that the trial court denied Newton’s motion. The officers’ testimony were found to be credible while Rose Yanko’s testimony not credible. The Honorable Michael T. Toole believed that after seeing the scorched-cup the “officer...