Com. v. Brown
| Decision Date | 27 February 1975 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert L. BROWN, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Marvin F. Galfand (Court Appointed), Philadelphia, for appellant.
Steven H. Goldblatt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.
VAN der VOORT, Judge.
The Appellant, Robert L. Brown, was tried before a judge, sitting without a jury, on charges of possession and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, namely heroin. Prior to trial, the Appellant unsuccessfully moved to suppress evidence seized from him. After a finding, at trial, of guilt on both counts, and post trial motions which were denied, Appellant filed this direct appeal to our Court. He raises several claims of error.
First, Brown argues that the evidence against him was seized as a result of an unlawful search. The record shows that on the evening of September 8, 1973, two Philadelphia police officers were cruising in a patrol car when they noticed a car driven by the Appellant. Their attention was drawn to this car by the fact that the entire windshield of the car was cracked; as the car passed by, they also saw that it had no rear lights. After the officers signaled for the Appellant to pull over, which he did, the officers parked behind him and directed their spotlight on the car.
One officer left the patrol car and approached the Appellant's car. As the policeman came within a few feet of the driver's door, the Appellant got out on the driver's side. The officer immediately noticed a metallic object in Brown's right hand, shining in the glare of the spotlight and then saw the Appellant quickly shove this object into the front waistband of his trousers.
Instinctively, the officer reached out and grabbed the Appellant's right hand, and pulled it from behind his belt. The officer later testified he believed at the time that the shiny metal object was a small derringer. After gaining control of Appellant's right arm, the officer Forced Brown to open his hand, which still grasped the metallic object. When Brown's grip relaxed, the officer saw that the shiny object was not a gun or really any other type of weapon, but rather, was a package of glassine envelopes partially covered by tinfoil. Closer inspection showed the glassine envelopes contained a white powder which later proved to be heroin. The officer then placed Brown under arrest.
The Appellant claims that the 'search' which revealed the tinfoil covered packets of heroin was unlawful. We cannot agree. In the landmark search and seizure case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the United States Supreme Court recognized the '. . . myriad daily situations in which policeman and citizens confront each other on the street.' Id. at 12, 88 S.Ct. at 1875. The Supreme Court held that police officers can judge each such confrontation in light of their individual experience and common sense. Supra, at 27, 28, 88 S.Ct. 1868. We find the following language from Terry, supra, at 24, 88 S.Ct. at 1881, to be particularly appropriate to the questions raised in this case:
'When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm.'
We find that the suspicion of the officer that Brown had a gun or other weapon in his hand to be perfectly justified and reasonable and therefore hold that the search which revealed the glassine heroin packets was proper. See also Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) (); Commonwealth v. De Jesus, 226 Pa.Super. 79, 310 A.2d 323 (1973).
Next, Appellant claims the evidence was insufficient to convict him of possession 'with intent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Ariondo
...Pa.Super. 91, 94-95, 401 A.2d 816, 817 (1979); Commonwealth v. Harris, 241 Pa.Super. 7, 359 A.2d 407 (1976); Commonwealth v. Brown, 232 Pa.Super. 463, 466, 335 A.2d 782, 784 (1975). Under Pennsylvania law, intent to deliver may be inferred from possession of a large quantity of controlled s......
-
Commonwealth v. Watley
...grounds, 268 Pa.Super. 488, 408 A.2d 1108 (1979); Commonwealth v. Harris, 241 Pa.Super. 7, 359 A.2d 407 (1976); Commonwealth v. Brown, 232 Pa.Super. 463, 335 A.2d 782 (1975).... Compare Commonwealth v. Sojourner, supra, 268 Pa.Super. at 477, 408 A.2d at 1102 (the expert testimony of a polic......
-
Com. v. Sojourner
...407 (1976) (16 half spoons of heroin); Commonwealth v. Wright, 234 Pa.Super. 83, 339 A.2d 103 (1975) (25 bags); Commonwealth v. Brown, 232 Pa.Super. 463, 335 A.2d 782 (1975) (25, 25, and 21 bags in respective Appellant argues that the trial judge erred in charging the jury that (as appellan......
-
Com. v. Campbell
...court notes, the sheer quantity of the drugs in his possession support the inference of an intent to deliver. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 232 Pa.Super. 463, 335 A.2d 782 (1975); Commonwealth v. Santiago, 462 Pa. 216, 340 A.2d 440 (1975). The cases cited by appellant to refute this inference ......