Com. v. Rosas

• Decision Date: 19 May 2005
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania Appellant v. Edil G. ROSAS Appellee. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Appellant v. Luis S. Brito Appellee.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

875 A.2d 341

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania Appellant v. Edil G. ROSAS Appellee.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Appellant v. Luis S. Brito Appellee.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted December 24, 2004.

Filed May 19, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jaime M. Keating, Assistant District Attorney, Carlisle, for Commonwealth, appellant.

Kara W. Haggerty, Carlisle, for Rosas.

H. Anthony Adams, Carlisle, for Brito.

Before: BENDER, PANELLA, and MONTEMURO^*, JJ.

OPINION BY PANELLA, J.:

¶ 1 The Commonwealth appeals from the orders¹ entered on June 28, 2004, and July 1, 2004, by the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, which granted the suppression motions of Appellees, Edil Gonzalez Rosas and Luis Santiago Brito.² The result was the suppression of approximately two (2) ounces of cocaine seized from a vehicle in which Rosas was driving and Brito was the passenger. After careful review, we reverse.

¶ 2 On November 8, 2003, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Bryan Henneman was "running radar" on Interstate 81 in Cumberland County when the radar showed a vehicle traveling 82 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour zone. Shortly thereafter, Trooper Henneman conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle. Upon approaching the vehicle, Trooper Henneman requested the driver, Rosas, to produce his driver's license, proof of insurance, and registration. Rosas, however, was unable to produce any of the three requested items, but did provide Trooper Henneman with a social security card. Rosas was also unable to provide a home address, supplying only the name of a town, i.e., Moorefield. Trooper Henneman also requested Rosas's date of birth.

¶ 3 Armed with Rosas's name and date of birth, Trooper Henneman conducted a license check on his in-car computer. Using his computer, Trooper Henneman checked Rosas through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC)³ and received information which indicated the possibility that Rosas may have been a deported felon wanted for immigration violations. The name on the NCIC report, however, was Jose Angel Gonzalez, and the report also noted that Jose Angel Gonzalez was also known by 34 aliases, none of which was Edil Gonzalez Rosas. The NCIC report noted at least two birth dates for Jose Angel Gonzalez, one of which matched the birth date provided by Rosas. Trooper Henneman also discovered that the vehicle was registered to a woman in West Virginia.

¶ 4 After receiving the information from the NCIC, Trooper Henneman requested backup, after which, Trooper Daniel James Housel responded. Upon Trooper Housel's arrival at the scene, Trooper Henneman placed Rosas in handcuffs and informed him that he was being detained because he was coming up on the NCIC as a deported felon. Trooper Henneman noted that Rosas was then placed between a patrol car and his vehicle while the passenger, Brito, remained seated in the vehicle.

¶ 5 Thereafter, Trooper Henneman testified that he observed, through the vehicle's rear glass hatch, an upside down license plate. Trooper Henneman asked Rosas whether he could enter the vehicle and "retrieve" the license plate and Rosas consented to the search. Because by this time the passenger, Brito, had exited the vehicle, Trooper Housel testified that he entered the vehicle through the passenger side, leaned the passenger seat forward, and reached into the back seat. According to Trooper Housel, he had to "move stuff" so that he could reach the back of the vehicle and that "[u]pon moving the stuff" he observed "a little plastic grocery bag sitting on the back seat," which he testified contained "what appeared to be cocaine or crack cocaine." Once the bag containing the cocaine was discovered, the passenger, Brito, was immediately placed into custody and both men were taken to the station for processing.

¶ 6 Rosas was subsequently charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance,⁴ possession of a controlled substance,⁵ and speeding.⁶ Brito was charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance⁷ and possession of a controlled substance.⁸ Rosas and Brito each filed timely motions to suppress evidence.

¶ 7 The suppression court held a hearing on Brito's suppression motion on May 6, 2004. The suppression hearing was very brief, consisting of a mere nine pages of testimony. Following the hearing, on May 19, 2004, the suppression court denied Brito's suppression motion.

¶ 8 On June 16, 2004, the suppression court conducted a hearing on Rosas's suppression motion, after which the court granted the motion. The suppression court noted that based on the NCIC report, "Trooper Henneman did not have reasonably, trustworthy information constituting probable cause to believe that [Rosas] ... was Jose Angel Gonzalez...." As such, the suppression court concluded that "the search of the vehicle by consent occurred after defendant was arrested without probable cause," and thus, granted the motion.

¶ 9 On June 29, 2004, Brito filed a motion for reconsideration of the suppression court's ruling. The basis for Brito's motion for reconsideration was predicated upon the testimony elicited during the suppression hearing held on Rosas's suppression motion on June 16, 2004. The suppression court granted Brito's motion for reconsideration on July 1, 2004, vacated its prior order, and consequently granted Brito's suppression motion.

¶ 10 These timely appeals followed.⁹ In both cases, the Commonwealth argues that the suppression court erred in suppressing the cocaine uncovered in the back of the vehicle because the trooper was justified in detaining the defendants until Rosas could be positively identified. See Appellant's Brief, No. 1162 MDA 2004, at 1; Appellant's Brief, No. 1163 MDA 2004, at 1.

¶ 11 Our standard of review when the Commonwealth appeals from a suppression order is well-settled. As recently explained by the Honorable Patrick R. Tamilia of our Court, when an appellate court reviews the ruling of a suppression court, we consider only the evidence from the defendant's witnesses together with the evidence of the prosecution that, when read in the context of the entire record, remains uncontradicted. See Commonwealth v. Gaul, 867 A.2d 557, 559 (Pa.Super.2005). We must "first ascertain whether the record supports the factual findings of the suppression court, and then determine the reasonableness of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn therefrom." Commonwealth v. Rosa, 734 A.2d 412, 414 (Pa.Super.1999) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 561 Pa. 693, 751 A.2d 189 (2000). The suppression court's factual findings are binding on us and we may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are erroneous. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 749 A.2d 957, 960 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 564 Pa. 710, 764 A.2d 1069 (2001).

¶ 12 Initially, we note that all of the suppression court's findings of fact are traceable to testimony in the record; therefore, we focus our attention on the propriety of the suppression court's legal conclusions. In this case, the parties do not dispute that the vehicle was properly stopped for a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code or that Trooper Henneman properly requested a driver's license, proof of insurance, and registration from Rosas. See 75 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. § 6308(a) ("The operator of any vehicle or any pedestrian reasonably believed to have violated any provision of this title shall stop upon request or signal of any police officer and shall, upon request, exhibit a registration card, driver's license and information relating to financial responsibility, or other means of identification...."); Rosa, 734 A.2d at 414 ("Incident to this stop, an officer may check the vehicle's registration, the driver's license and obtain any information necessary to enforce provisions of the motor vehicle code."). The dispute centers on whether Trooper Housel was authorized to enter the vehicle following a lawful detention, which subsequently led to the discovery of the narcotics.

¶ 13 As stated, the suppression court concluded that Trooper Henneman lacked probable cause for an arrest, but nevertheless placed Rosas under arrest before he sought Rosas's consent to search the vehicle. Under this scenario, the suppression court concluded that the detention of the appellant was unlawful, necessitating the suppression of the narcotics found in the car "[b]ecause the search of the vehicle by consent occurred after [Rosas] was arrested without probable cause...." Trial Court Opinion, 6/28/04, at 5. The Commonwealth, on the other hand, contends that Rosas was not under arrest at the time he was asked to give his consent for the search, but rather, was the subject of an investigative detention.

¶ 14 We agree with the Commonwealth and find that the troopers did not arrest Rosas and Brito until after the narcotics were discovered, and that prior to his formal arrest Rosas was the subject of an investigative detention. An investigative detention, which must be supported by reasonable suspicion, subjects a person to a stop and period of detention in order for the law enforcement officer to obtain more information.

We have held consistently that the Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968),] and its progeny recognize that the essence of good police work is for the police to adopt an intermediate response where they observe a suspect engaging in unusual and suspicious behavior. A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be reasonable in light of facts known to the officer at the time.

Commonwealth v. Bryant, 866 A.2d 1143, 1146 (Pa.Super.2005) (...