September 22, 2015- Commonwealth v Darrin Orlando Mathis:  The Pennsylvania Superior Court today issued an important appellate decision upholding a search by Pennsylvania State Probation and Parole agents during a routine parole check on a parolee.  The issue on appeal was whether parole officers can detain a non-parolee while interacting with a parolee and whether they can can detain and pat down the non-parolee if they have reasonable suspicion of him being armed and dangerous.  This was was the first time this issue was considered by an appellate court in Pennsylvania.  

The facts of the case are that Darrin Mathis was visiting a friend who was on parole.  Parole agents entered the parolee’s house for a routine inspection.  When they entered, the house wreaked of burnt marijuana.  The parolee was detained in handcuffs in the living room while Mathis was left unattended in the kitchen.  Parole agents realized Mathis was acting suspiciously by pacing back and forth and talking on his cell phone.  When he was asked to leave, he picked up his sweatshirt like a football gently which caused the parole agent to reasonably suspect that Mathis was holding a gun.  When the parole agent grabbed the sweatshirt in Mathis’ arms he immediately knew Mathis was carrying a gun.  Parole agents then conducted a pat-down search for officer safety and found a gun in the sweatshirt that Mathis had been holding.

The Superior Court held, “Within the context of their limited statutory authority over parolees, we must recognize a parole officer’s concomitant authority to conduct a weapons frisk of a non-parolee when the facts and circumstances would warrant a reasonably prudent police officer in doing the same.”  “It is irrational to presume that a parole agent will only ever encounter his parolee during an arrest or home visit.  We believe that while a parole agent is performing his official statutory duties, he is entitled to the same protections this Commonwealth has afforded to police officers with respect to his interaction with third parties, other than the parolee.”

Deputy District Attorney Joseph Cardinale, on behalf of the Dauphin County District Attorney's Office, handled this appeal and argued this case before the Pennsylvania Superior Court. 

Read the complete Superior Court decision below.