Commonwealth v. Boyce
| Decision Date | 23 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 199 EDA 2022,J-A24034-22 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SAIFUDEEN BOYCE Appellant |
| Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Saifudeen Boyce ("Boyce") appeals from the judgment of sentence of three years of probation following his convictions for carrying a firearm without a license and carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia.[1] After careful review, we affirm.
The record establishes the following: On January 10, 2020, at approximately 1:26 p.m., Philadelphia Police Officer Timothy Sedler was on duty in Philadelphia. See N.T. 12/16/21, at 7. Officer Sedler received "flash information" over the police radio that someone had fired a gun at a vehicle at the 5800 block of Alter Street. See id. at 7-8. Police investigated the report discovered casings on the ground at the site of the shooting, and included this fact in the flash information. See id. at 8; see also id. at D-1, p.2 (). Officer Sedler received several flashes, which he described as follows:
It came out . . . for a person with a gun radio assignment at 5800 Alter Street, that was at approximately 1:25 p.m. it came out. The remarks are description - black male, black jacket with fur around the hood, through the alley towards Ellsworth, three shots heard. It later came out . . . four to five shots heard, no flash, ten shots heard, no flash, and then, lastly . . . it came out, armed with a gun, black male, blue/black jacket with fur on hood[,] shooting at house on corner, last seen on foot through alley towards 5800 Baltimore . . ..
Id. at 12; see also id. at 10 (). In another flash that occurred at approximately 2 p.m., another officer, Sergeant Smith,[2] stated over the radio that he had observed a male matching the flash description on 5700 Christian Street, which is about four blocks away from the site of the shooting. See id. at 8, 10. Officer Sedler, and his partner, Officer Finkbohner,[3] were traveling eastbound on that street in a marked vehicle, when Officer Sedler spotted the suspect. See id. at 8-9, 23. Officer Sedler observed Boyce using his cell phone and walking westbound on Christian Street. See id. at 22. Officer Finkbohner performed a "u-turn" and pulled the marked police vehicle up next to Boyce. See id. at 9. Officer Sedler, who was in full uniform and had his body camera activated, exited the car, announced himself as police, and told Boyce to stop. See id. at 12, 23-24. He grabbed Boyce and asked him about the firearm; Boyce responded that he had a gun in his front waistband. See id. at 9, 24-25.[4] Officer Finkbohner lifted up Boyce's shirt and Officer Sedler recovered a 40-caliber black and silver Smith & Wesson handgun, model SD40VE, serial number FZP6953, with twelve rounds in the magazine and one round in the chamber. See id. at 9. Officer Sedler checked to see if Boyce had a permit to carry, and when he discovered Boyce did not, he placed Boyce under arrest and transported him to the police station. See id.[5] The Commonwealth charged Boyce with the supra firearms offenses. See Information, 2/21/20. Boyce moved for suppression, arguing, among other things, that he was subjected to a stop without the requisite reasonable suspicion, and he was arrested without probable cause. See Omnibus Motion, 7/30/20, at 1.
The trial court held a suppression hearing on December 16, 2021, at which the Commonwealth offered testimony by Officer Sedler along with several exhibits, including, inter alia, footage from Officer Sedler's body camera. The Commonwealth called no other witnesses, and Boyce presented no evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied suppression and issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law:
N.T., 12/16/21, at 34-36 (emphases added).
This Court's standard of review for an order denying a suppression motion is as follows:
Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record, we are bound by these findings and may reverse only if the court's legal conclusions are erroneous. Where, as here, the appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of legal error, the suppression court's legal conclusions are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject to our plenary review.
Commonwealth v. Mbewe, 203 A.3d 983, 986 (Pa. Super. 2019) ().
Boyce argues that Officer Sedler subjected him to an investigatory detention without reasonable suspicion. This Court has previously explained:
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, including those entailing only a brief detention. Specifically, police officers may not conduct a warrantless search or seizure unless one of several recognized exceptions applies. If a defendant's detention violates the Fourth Amendment, then any evidence seized during that stop must be excluded as fruit of an unlawful detention.
Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 287 A.3d 1, 7 (Pa. Super. 2022) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Further, there are three types of interactions between police and citizens:
To continue reading
Request your trial