Com. v. Evans

• Decision Date: 27 June 1995
• Citation: Com. v. Evans, 661 A.2d 881, 443 Pa.Super. 351 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Alfred EVANS, Appellee.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 881

661 A.2d 881

443 Pa.Super. 351

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v.Alfred EVANS, Appellee.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued April 18, 1995.

Filed June 27, 1995.

Michael Erlich, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for Com., appellant.

David M. McGlaughlin, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before WIEAND, BECK and HOFFMAN, JJ.

WIEAND, Judge:

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from an order suppressing marijuana found in and removed from a vehicle being driven by Alfred Evans.The suppression order was entered by the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, and the Court of Common Pleas denied certiorari.It is from this order that the present appeal was taken.¹

"Where a motion to suppress physical evidence has been filed, '[t]he Commonwealth [has] the burden of going forward with the evidence and of establishing that the challenged evidence was not obtained in violation of the defendant's rights.'The Commonwealth is required to establish the admissibility of the challenged evidence by a preponderance of the evidence."Commonwealth v. Govens, 429 Pa.Super. 464, 472, 632 A.2d 1316, 1320(1993)(en banc), quotingPa.R.Crim.P. 323(h).See also: Commonwealth v. DeWitt, 530 Pa. 299, 301, 608 A.2d 1030, 1031(1992);Commonwealth v. Frombach, 420 Pa.Super. 498, 500, 617 A.2d 15, 16(1992).In reviewing an appeal by the Commonwealth from an order suppressing evidence,

we must consider only the evidence of the defendant's witnesses and so much of the Commonwealth evidence that, read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted.SeeCommonwealth v. Hamlin, 503 Pa. 210, 469 A.2d 137(1983).Furthermore, our scope of appellate review is limited primarily to questions of law.SeeCommonwealth v. White, 358 Pa.Super. 120, 516 A.2d 1211(1986).We are bound by the suppression court's findings of fact if those findings are supported by the record.Id.Factual findings wholly lacking in evidence, however, may be rejected.Id.

Commonwealth v. Stine, 372 Pa.Super. 312, 314, 539 A.2d 454, 455(1988).See also: Commonwealth v. Lagana, 517 Pa. 371, 375-376, 537 A.2d 1351, 1353-1354(1988);Commonwealth v. James, 506 Pa. 526, 532-533, 486 A.2d 376, 379(1985)."Where the factual findings of the suppression court are supported by the record, we may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are erroneous."Commonwealth v. Frombach, supra at 500, 617 A.2d at 17.See also: Commonwealth v. Twyman, 425 Pa.Super. 198, 202, 624 A.2d 636, 637(1993);Commonwealth v. Smith, 396 Pa.Super. 6, 8, 577 A.2d 1387, 1388(1990).

The pertinent facts may be described as follows:

On June 25, 1992, Officer Robert Snyder of the Philadelphia Police Department Highway Patrol Unit was patrolling Interstate 95 (I-95) in the area of Aramingo Avenue and York Street at approximately 6:30 a.m. when he observed appellee operating a vehicle with expired temporary tags.Upon noticing the expired tags the officer shined his spotlight in appellee's back window, put on his dome lights and signaled for appellee to pull into a gas station located off the highway.

Appellee pulled into the gas station lot, proceeded to go around the gas station and headed back onto Aramingo Avenue towards the entrance of I-95.Fearing that appellee was attempting to flee, the officer immediately pulled his vehicle in front of appellee's in order to block his route of travel and ordered appellee to shut off his vehicle.The officer then testified that as he proceeded to get out of his [the officer's] vehicle, appellee quickly exited his vehicle, closed the door and walked towards the back of his car.[Officer Snyder] then approached appellee and asked him to produce some form of identification as well as any paperwork for the car (i.e., title or registration).

After failing to find any identification or paperwork on his person, appellee walked back to his car to see if he could locate them.Officer Snyder testified that as appellee walked towards his vehicle, he kept looking back over his shoulder in the officer's direction.Due to appellee's suspicious behavior, the officer walked up behind appellee as he opened his car door.As appellee opened the car door and proceeded to bend down into the car, the officer noticed an object approximately 3 to 4 inches wide and two inches in height wrapped in plastic, protruding from underneath the driver's seat.Suspecting that the object was narcotics, the officer handcuffed appellee and placed him under arrest.The officer then retrieved the object and it was later discovered to contain marijuana.

At the conclusion of Officer Snyder's direct testimony and cross-examination by defense counsel, appellee took the stand on his own behalf.The court then heard brief argument before granting the motion to suppress, finding that the officer lacked sufficient probable cause to arrest appellee.Therefore, the subsequent search of appellee's vehicle was illegal and all evidence derived therefrom was suppressed.

Court of Common Pleas Opinionat pp. 2-3.²

"As a general rule, a search conducted without a warrant is presumed to be unreasonable unless it can be justified under a recognized exception to the search warrant requirement."Commonwealth v. Agnew, 411 Pa.Super. 63, 74, 600 A.2d 1265, 1271(1991).See also: Commonwealth v. Holzer, 480 Pa. 93, 102, 389 A.2d 101, 106(1978);Commonwealth v. McBride, 391 Pa.Super. 113, 119, 570 A.2d 539, 542(1990)."A search incident to a lawful arrest is one such exception."Commonwealth v. Albino, 438 Pa.Super. 562, 565-66, 652 A.2d 953, 954(1995).See also: Commonwealth v. Lewis, 394 Pa.Super. 403, 407, 576 A.2d 63, 65(1990);Commonwealth v. York, 381 Pa.Super. 55, 61, 552 A.2d 1092, 1094(1989)."To be constitutionally valid, a warrantless arrest must be supported by probable cause."Commonwealth v. Anderson, 360 Pa.Super. 466, 470, 520 A.2d 1184, 1186(1987).See also: Commonwealth v. Canning, 402 Pa.Super. 438, 441-442, 587 A.2d 330, 332(1991);Commonwealth v. Merriwether, 382 Pa.Super. 411, 419, 555 A.2d 906, 910(1989).Accordingly, " '[w]hen a policeman has made a lawful arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.' "Commonwealth v. Jones, 396 Pa.Super. 304, 307, 578 A.2d 527, 529(1990), quotingNew York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 2864, 69 L.Ed.2d 768, 775(1981)(footnotes omitted).See also: Commonwealth v. Mickell, 409 Pa.Super. 595, 606, 598 A.2d 1003, 1009(1991).

There also exists an exception to the requirement of obtaining a search warrant "for certain automobile searches based on the inherent mobility of vehicles, with the consequent practical problems in obtaining a warrant prior to infringing a legitimate expectation of privacy, and on the 'diminished expectation of privacy which is accorded automobiles because of their open construction, their function, and their subjection to a myriad of state regulations.' "Commonwealth v. Milyak, 508 Pa. 2, 7-8, 493 A.2d 1346, 1349(1985), quotingCommonwealth v. Timko, 491 Pa. 32, 38, 417 A.2d 620, 623(1980).See also: Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 526 Pa. 268, 272, 585 A.2d 988, 990(1991);Commonwealth v. Camacho, 425 Pa.Super. 567, 576, 625 A.2d 1242, 1246-1247(1993)."Once the requirement of probable cause is satisfied, the exigencies regarding the inherent mobility of a vehicle and inadequate time to obtain a search warrant render a warrantless vehicle search proper even when the accused is in police custody."Commonwealth v. Elliot, 416 Pa.Super. 499, 504, 611 A.2d 727, 729(1992).See also: Commonwealth v. Baker, 518 Pa. 145, 149, 541 A.2d 1381, 1383-1384(1988);Commonwealth v. Kilgore, 437 Pa.Super. 491, 496-98, 650 A.2d 462, 465(1994).Where a vehicle has been stopped for an ordinary traffic offense, however, a warrantless search of the vehicle may only be conducted where police have independent probable cause "to believe that the contents of the automobile offend the law."Commonwealth v. Germann, 423 Pa.Super. 393, 398, 621 A.2d 589, 592(1993).See also: Commonwealth v. Lewis, 442 Pa. 98, 101, 275 A.2d 51, 52(1971);Commonwealth v. Talley, 430 Pa.Super. 351, 354-355, 634 A.2d 640, 642(1993).

"In this Commonwealth, the standard for evaluating whether probable cause exists is the 'totality of the circumstances' test set forth in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527(1983)."Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, supra at 272, 585 A.2d at 990.See: Commonwealth v. Baker, 513 Pa. 23, 26, 518 A.2d 802, 803-804(1986);Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476, 503 A.2d 921(1985)."Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed."Commonwealth v. Gibson, 536 Pa. 123, 130, 638 A.2d 203, 206(1994).See also: In the Interest of D.W., 427 Pa.Super. 629, 632, 629 A.2d 1387, 1388(1993);Commonwealth v. Fromal, 392 Pa.Super. 100, 113, 572 A.2d 711, 717(1990);Commonwealth v. Butler, 354 Pa.Super. 533 537-538, 512 A.2d 667, 669-670(1986).In making this determination,

'we consider all the factors and their total effect, and do not concentrate on each individual element....We also focus on the circumstances as seen through the eyes of the trained officer, and do not view the situation as an average citizen might....Finally, we must remember that in dealing with questions of probable cause, we are not dealing with certainties.We are dealing with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men act.This is not the same 'beyond-a-reasonable-doubt' standard which we apply in determining guilt or innocence at trial.Commonwealth v. Devlin, 221 Pa.Super. 175, 289 A.2d 237(1972).'

Commonwealth v. Simmons, 295 Pa.Super. 72, 83, 440 A.2d 1228, 1234(1982), quotin...