Pennsylvania v. Dunlap

Background

The State of Pennsylvania sought review of a conviction involving Nathan Dunlap, who was arrested after an undercover officer watched a quick hand-to-hand exchange of cash for small objects on a street corner in a high-crime neighborhood. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest because the officer did not see the drugs, had no informant tip, and the suspect did not flee. The State asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, but the Court declined to review it.

Reasoning

The key question was whether an experienced narcotics officer’s observation of a single cash-for-small-objects exchange in a high-crime area is enough for probable cause to arrest. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Kennedy, dissented from the denial of review, arguing that the officer’s training and experience made a drug transaction the most likely explanation and therefore provided probable cause. The dissent cited prior decisions saying officers may rely on experience and common-sense in making such judgments and would have granted review and reversed the state court.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused review, the Pennsylvania ruling stands for now and could make it harder for police in that State to arrest based only on similar observations. The dissent warned that police may need to make riskier undercover purchases to secure arrests, and noted that state courts are divided on this fact pattern, which complicates consistent policing rules across states.

Dissents or concurrances

The dissent is central here: Chief Justice Roberts argued that judges should not be naively skeptical of common-sense policing conclusions and that the observed conduct was likely a drug deal, warranting reversal of the Pennsylvania court’s decision.