Commonwealth v. Brodie
| Decision Date | 30 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 718 MDA 2022,719 MDA 2022,J-S44004-22 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NOLAN NATHANIEL BRODIE, JR. Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NOLAN NATHANIEL BRODIE Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Nolan Nathaniel Brodie appeals, nunc pro tunc, from the judgment of sentence entered following his convictions, at two trial court dockets, of dealing in proceeds of unlawful activities, criminal use of a communication facility possession of a controlled substance (THC), possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use.[1] On appeal, Brodie raises suppression claims relative to the warrantless search of his vehicle and the validity of search warrants obtained for his car and cell phones. Brodie also challenges the admission of text messages from his phones on the basis that they were not properly authenticated. We conclude Brodie's claims do not merit relief and therefore affirm.
On September 11, 2018, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Eric Dreisbach was on routine patrol in Lebanon County when he observed a black Ford Taurus with heavily tinted windows and significant damage to the hood. Trooper Dreisbach followed the vehicle and initiated a traffic stop. When Trooper Dreisbach contacted Brodie, he noticed the odor of marijuana. Brodie indicated that he had smoked marijuana in the vehicle the previous day. Based on the odor of marijuana, Trooper Dreisbach asked Brodie to exit the vehicle.
Trooper Dreisbach then performed a pat-down search of Brodie and found a significant sum of U.S. currency. In response to Trooper Dreisbach's questions, Brodie explained the damage to his vehicle had been caused by a recent accident, and he stated there was more money in the car. Brodie also admitted he was on state parole and did not have a driver's license.
Trooper Dreisbach requested the assistance of a K-9 unit, and after a sweep, the K-9 alerted to the vehicle. Thereafter, Trooper Dreisbach performed a search of the vehicle. The search revealed a vial of marijuana, a bag containing nearly $39,000.00 in cash, two cell phones, a computer, a tablet, and a duffle bag containing a piece of a vacuum-sealed bag and dryer sheets. Brodie was arrested and transported to the police station. The vehicle was later impounded.
During an interview, Brodie indicated he would not consent to a search of the two cell phones. Trooper Dreisbach obtained search warrants for both cell phones as well as the vehicle. During the second vehicle search, police found several ampules of THC.
While executing the search warrant on the cell phones, police obtained extraction reports referencing user accounts on the phones, as well as text messages, photographs, and videos. Police also monitored Brodie's recorded phone calls from prison and compared those conversations with text message conversations recovered from the cell phones.
At trial court docket number 1497-2018 ("No. 1497-2018"), Brodie was charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use, as well as the summary offenses of driving without a license, obstruction of front windshield, and improper sunscreening. At trial court docket number 1744-2018 ("1744-2018"), Brodie was charged with dealing in the proceeds of unlawful activities and criminal use of a communication facility. The cases were consolidated for trial.
On January 15, 2019, Brodie filed a motion to suppress evidence recovered from the search of his vehicle and cell phones. Brodie argued Trooper Dreisbach lacked probable cause to conduct the initial traffic stop or perform the first vehicle search. He also claimed the search warrants for the second vehicle search and the cell phones were not supported by probable cause.
The Commonwealth filed a motion in limine requesting an evidentiary hearing to address authentication and admissibility of the text message evidence.
The trial court conducted joint hearings on the motion to suppress and the motion in limine. At the conclusion of the second hearing, the trial court indicated it was clear on the issue of suppression and authentication of the cell phone ending in 7817 ("Cell Phone 1"). However, the trial court directed the parties to file briefs concerning the authentication of the cell phone ending in 5031 ("Cell Phone 2").[2] On June 4, 2019, the trial court entered an order denying Brodie's motion to suppress and granting the Commonwealth's motion in limine.
The matter proceeded to a jury trial on August 21, 2019. At No. 1497-2018, the jury convicted Brodie of possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use. At No. 1744-2018, the jury found Brodie guilty of dealing in proceeds of unlawful activities and criminal use of a communication facility. Additionally, the improper sunscreening charge was withdrawn, and Brodie was found not guilty of driving without a license and obstruction of front windshield.
Following preparation of a pre-sentence investigation report and a hearing, the trial court sentenced Brodie to an aggregate term of 64 months to 17 years in prison, plus fines and the costs of prosecution. Brodie filed a timely post-sentence motion. The trial court denied relief, and Brodie filed an untimely appeal. This Court quashed the appeal after Brodie failed to respond to the rule to show cause on the issues of the appeal's untimeliness and failure to comply with Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 976 (Pa. 2018) (requiring separate notices of appeal when the order appealed from arises from more than one docket or relates to more than one judgment).
While Brodie's first appeal was pending, trial counsel sought and was granted leave to withdraw from representation. The trial court appointed new counsel, who filed a petition for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"),[3] requesting reinstatement of Brodie's direct appeal rights, nunc pro tunc. After a hearing, the trial court reinstated Brodie's direct appeal rights. The instant nunc pro tunc appeal followed.[4]
On appeal, Brodie raises the following claims for our review:
In his first issue, Brodie raises several challenges to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Our Court's standard of review for a suppression issue is deferential to the suppression court's findings of fact, but not its conclusions of law:
An appellate court's 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, the appellate court is bound by those findings and may reverse only if the court's legal conclusions are erroneous. Where 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 plenary review.
Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524, 526-27 (Pa. Super. 2015) ().
We will address Brodie's distinct suppression challenges in turn. First, Brodie challenges the warrantless search of his vehicle.[5] Police may conduct a warrantless vehicle search so long as the search is supported by probable cause. See Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102, 137-38 (Pa. 2014).[6] Probable cause requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances. See Commonwealth v. Scott, 210 A.3d 359, 363 (Pa. Super. 2019).
Probable cause is made out when the facts and circumstances which are within the knowledge of the officer at the time of the arrest, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the suspect has committed or is committing a crime. The question we ask is not whether the officer's belief was correct or more likely true than false. Rather, we require only a probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity. …
Commonwealth v. Grooms, 247 A.3d 31, 38 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation and emphasis omitted); see also Scott, 210 A.3d at 363 .
During the suppression hearing, Trooper Dreisbach described Brodie's demeanor during the interaction...
To continue reading
Request your trial