Com. v. Lawson

• Decision Date: 21 September 1973
• Citation: 309 A.2d 391,454 Pa. 23
• Parties: , 74 A.L.R.3d 831 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Aldon and Demetrius LAWSON, Appellants.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 391

309 A.2d 391

454 Pa. 23, 74 A.L.R.3d 831

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Aldon and Demetrius LAWSON, Appellants.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 21, 1973.

John J. Dean, Sallie Ann Radick, Pittsburgh, for appellants.

Robert W. Duggan, Dist. Atty., Carol Mary Los, Robert L. Eberhardt, Asst. Dist. Attys., Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.

OPINION

MANDERINO, Justice.

Appellants, Aldon Lawson and Demetrius Lawson, are husband and wife, who were convicted after separate nonjury trials of the same three offenses-- possession of narcotic drugs, dealing in narcotic drugs, and conspiracy to commit an unlawful act. Aldon Lawson received a sentence of five to twenty years for dealing in narcotic drugs, a concurrent sentence of two to five years for possession of narcotic drugs, and a suspended sentence for the conspiracy. Demetrius Lawson received a sentence of two to five years for possession of narcotic drugs, and suspended sentences for dealing in narcotic drugs and the conspiracy. Post-trial motions were denied and the Superior Court, 220 Pa.Super. 773, 286 A.2d 436, affirmed the judgments of sentence. These appeals were allowed in which we also affirm the judgments of sentence.

Police officers, who were located in an abandoned building approximately thirty feet away, observed the appellants standing on the street in front of a bar. The observation began about 11:50 p.m. The area was lit from a street light about ten feet away from the appellants. Binoculars were used for the observation. At least one officer used high powered day and night binoculars. The officers observed three separate transactions taking place. During each transaction, the officers observed a third person approach and hand over paper money to the husband, Aldon Lawson. The husband would then walk over to his wife, who was standing several feet away. She would remove from her bosom something that looked like a dark sack. From the sack a small item was then taken and given to the husband. The wife would return the dark sack to her bosom and the husband would return to the person who had given him the money and hand over the item removed from the sack. The person receiving the item would leave the scene immediately. The husband put the money he had received in his pocket.

After the third transaction, the observing officers, using a two-way radio, informed other officers who were in an unmarked car near the scene, of their observations. The officers in the car immediately drove to the scene. When the appellants saw the car pull up, they quickly headed into the bar. The wife entered first. The husband entered the bar and stood in the doorway, blocking the entrance. One officer went by the husband and arrested the wife, who was heading toward the ladies' room. Another officer arrested the husband.

At the police station, when the appellant wife was about to be searched, she handed over a large blue balloon which she had taken from bosom. Inside the balloon was a plastic bag and inside the plastic bag were ten capsules of white powder later identified as heroin. No narcotics were found on the husband's person, but he had approximately $208 in his wallet.

Essentially, the appellants claim (1) the lack of probable cause for their arrest (2) the insufficiency of the evidence, and (3) that husband and wife, acting alone, cannot be convicted of a conspiracy.

Appellants rely on United States v. Henry, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959), in challenging the lack of probable cause for their arrest. In Henry, agents, who were investigating a theft of whiskey from a terminal, observed the defendant and another man leave a tavern and drive to an alley behind residential premises, which the defendant entered, returning in a few minutes with some cartons. The agents were unable to follow the car. Later, the agents again saw the car parked near the tavern. They again observed the defendant and another man driving to the same residential premises, park in the alley and return to the car again with some cartons from the residential premises. Later, it was determined that the cartons contained stolen property, other than whiskey, and the defendant was placed under arrest. Henry said that:

'Riding in the car, stopping in an alley, picking up packages, driving away--these were all acts that were outwardly innocent. Their movements in the car had no mark of fleeing men or men acting furtively. The case might be different if the packages had been taken from a terminal or from an interstate trucking platform. But they were not. As we have said, the alley where the packages were picked up was In a residential section. The fact that packages have been stolen does not make every man who carries a package subject to arrest nor the package subject to seizure. The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that the particular package carried by the citizen is contraband. Its shape and design might at times be adequate. The weight of it and the manner in which it is carried might at times be enough. But there was nothing to indicate that the cartons here in issue probably contained liquor. The fact that they contained other contraband appeared only some hours after the arrest . . . (A)n arrest is not justified by what the subsequent search discloses. Under our system suspicion is not enough for an officer to lay hands on a citizen. It is better, so the Fourth Amendment teaches, that the guilty sometimes go free than that citizens be subject to easy arrest.'

(Emphasis supplied.) 361 U.S. at 103--104, 80 S.Ct. at 171, 4 L.Ed.2d at 139--140.

Henry makes it clear that all of the circumstances surrounding a transaction between citizens are to be considered in determining whether law enforcement officers have acted arbitrarily or have acted on the basis of Probable cause. 'Probable cause exists if the facts or circumstances known to the officer warrant a prudent man in believing that (an) offense has been committed.' (Emphasis supplied.) United States v. Henry, Supra, 361 U.S. at 102, 80 S.Ct. at 171, 4 L.Ed.2d at 138 (1959). In each case an analysis of All of the circumstances is necessary. Such an analysis is not always an easy one to make. In this case, a close question is presented, but we believe that the officers reasonably concluded that an offense was being committed.

The officers observed three separate exchanges of small items for money on a street at about 11:50 p.m. The wife seller kept the items in her bosom between transactions. The husband seller who received the money from the buyers did not keep the items on his person. Only after receiving money from the buyer did the husband walk over to his wife who would remove the items from a place of concealment in her bosom for transfer to her husband. She would then return the items to their place of concealment. Only the husband seller would transact the business at hand with the buyer, while the wife seller remained several feet away. Each buyer would immediately depart after the completion of the transaction. Wheh the appellants saw the unmarked car suddenly pull up alongside of them, they quickly headed into the bar. As the officers followed them, the wife headed toward the ladies' room while the husband blocked the entance to the bar.

All of the detailed facts and circumstances must be considered. The time is important; the street location is important; the use of a street for commercial transactions is important; the number of such transactions is important; the place where the small items were kept by one of the sellers is important; the movements and manners of the parties are important. Considering the facts and circumstances in their totality, we conclude that the officers acted as prudent men in believing that some type of contraband was being sold....