Commonwealth v. Mahon

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001 · Criminal Law

771 A.2d 1261

Updated July 19, 2026

criminal lawFourth Amendmentsearch and seizureprotective sweepscope of search warrantseparate premisesreasonable suspicionpat-down frisk

Facts

Police investigated drug trafficking at the G-Service Convenience Store, conducted surveillance, used a confidential informant to make a controlled buy from the store owner, and obtained a warrant to search the convenience store. During execution of the warrant, police found the owner and crack cocaine on the first floor, then went into the basement, where they found Taylor under a barber's apron while Mahone was cutting his hair in a barbershop area containing barber equipment. After Taylor repeatedly moved his hands under the apron despite commands not to move, Officer Adams frisked him, felt a hard object, and removed a prescription bottle that appeared to contain crack cocaine. After Taylor was arrested and both men were handcuffed, police searched two coats about ten feet away and found crack in Taylor's coat and marijuana in Mahone's coat.

Issue

Whether the basement search was within the scope of the warrant or otherwise justified as a protective sweep, and whether the frisk of Taylor and the search of the two coats were valid under the Fourth Amendment. Also at issue was whether removing the pill bottle from Taylor's pocket exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry frisk.

Rule

A search warrant extends only to places described by the warrant and supported by probable cause; a separate and distinct area not covered by the probable-cause showing falls outside the warrant's scope. Police may conduct a second-level protective sweep beyond the immediate arrest area only when specific and articulable facts, together with rational inferences, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing the area harbors a dangerous individual. A Terry frisk permits a limited pat-down for weapons when an officer reasonably suspects the person may be armed and dangerous, and the officer may reach into a pocket if the object felt reasonably appears to be a weapon. A search incident to arrest extends only to the arrestee's person and the area within the arrestee's immediate control, and must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies justifying it.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Police in Columbus, Ohio obtain a warrant to search "Riverside Market," a first-floor grocery at 214 Elm Street, based on controlled drug buys from the grocery counter. During execution, officers open an interior door marked "Oak Street Tax Service" and enter a back office used only for tax preparation, where they find narcotics in a desk drawer.

Was the back-office search within the scope of the warrant?

Explanation. The majority rule is that the scope of a lawful warrant search is defined by the object of the search and the places where there is probable cause to believe it may be found. A separate and distinct area in the same building is outside the warrant if the affidavit focuses only on the described premises and does not establish probable cause for the separate area. Here, the tax office was functionally distinct from the grocery and not supported by the warrant affidavit. (Derived from Commonwealth v. Mahon (n.d.).)