Commonwealth v. Cotton
Citation | 740 A.2d 258 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Kymmar COTTON, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 12 October 1999 |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
John W. Packel, Asst. Public Defender, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Peter J. Gardner, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for Com., appellee.
Before FORD ELLIOTT and STEVENS, JJ., and CERCONE, President Judge Emeritus.
CERCONE, President Judge Emeritus:
¶ 1 Appellant Kymmar Cotton appeals from the judgment of sentence of eighteen months probation imposed after his conviction for the offenses of carrying a loaded firearm without a license and carrying a loaded firearm on the streets of Philadelphia.1 We affirm.
¶ 2 The Suppression Court has aptly summarized the facts surrounding Appellant's arrest which were adduced at his suppression hearing held July 17, 1997:
Before asking the [Appellant] to step out of the car, Officer Harrison ran [Appellant's] name and birth date through the N.C.I.C. 1 database which reported that [Appellant] had two outstanding bench warrants. At this point, Officer Harrison and his partner asked [Appellant] to step out of the car and placed him under arrest. During a search incident to that arrest, a Lorcin .25 caliber semiautomatic pistol loaded with 7 live rounds was recovered from [Appellant's] coat pocket. (N.T. 7/1[7]/97 p. 8).
Suppression Court Opinion, filed 1/13/98 at 1-2 (footnote in original).
¶ 3 Appellant waived his right to a jury trial. The next day he was convicted by The Honorable Lynn B. Hamlin Jr. of the aforementioned offenses and given the above referenced sentences. On August 1, 1997 Appellant filed this timely appeal.2
¶ 4 On appeal to our Court Appellant presents one issue for our consideration:
[I.] Did not the lower court err in denying a Motion to Suppress physical evidence illegally seized from appellant where appellant, the driver of a motor vehicle, was stopped for a traffic violation by a non uniformed police officer who lacked legal authority to initiate such a stop, and where the Commonwealth failed to introduce sufficient evidence at the motion to suppress to establish probable cause for appellant's arrest, presenting only the arresting officer's reliance on hearsay information gathered from a National Crime Information Center radio report that appellant was wanted on two bench warrants, warrants that were neither produced in court nor proven to be valid through competent testimony, in violation of appellants rights under Article 1, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
¶ 5 We have stated, in prior cases, our standard of review for the denial of a suppression motion as follows:
When we review the ruling of a suppression court, we must determine whether its factual findings are supported by the record. Where the [appellant] challenges an adverse ruling of the suppression court, we will consider only the evidence for the prosecution and whatever evidence for the defense which is uncontradicted on the record as a whole; if there is support on the record, we are bound by the facts as found by the suppression court, and we may reverse that court only if the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are erroneous.
Commonwealth v. Roman, 714 A.2d 440, 442 (Pa.Super.1998); Commonwealth v. Perry, 710 A.2d 1183, 1184 (Pa.Super. 1998). Moreover, as factfinder, it is within the suppression court's sole province to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony. Commonwealth v. Benton, 440 Pa.Super. 441, 655 A.2d 1030, 1032 (1995). The factfinder is free to believe all, some, or none of the evidence presented. Id.
¶ 6 Appellant first argues that Officer Harrison and his partner had no authority to stop him for disregarding a stop sign because they were out of uniform in an unmarked car. Appellant asserts that "[t]he Motor Vehicle Code of Pennsylvania expressly limits the authority to enforce the Motor Vehicle Code to those police officers who are `in uniform'." Appellant's Brief at 10. We do not interpret the relevant Motor Vehicle Code provision which authorizes a police officer to make an investigative traffic stop so restrictively.
Section 6308(b) of the Motor Vehicle Code provides:
(b) Authority of police officer.— Whenevera police officer is engaged in a systematic program of checking vehicles or drivers or has articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of this title, he may stop a vehicle, upon request or signal, for the purpose of checking the vehicle's registration, proof of financial responsibility, vehicle identification number or engine number or the driver's license, or to secure such other information as the officer may reasonably believe to be necessary to enforce the provisions of this title.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6308(b) (emphasis supplied).
appeal denied, 546 Pa. 676, 686 A.2d 1308 (1996) ( )3
¶ 9 Appellant next argues that his arrest by the two officers due to the existence of the outstanding bench warrants was invalid because the Commonwealth did not produce the warrants at his suppression hearing. Appellant asserts that because the Commonwealth failed to produce the warrants, the Commonwealth therefore did not satisfy its burden of demonstrating probable cause to justify Appellant's arrest. We cannot agree.
¶ 10 Appellant relies on three cases to support his argument. Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971); United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985) and Commonwealth v. Queen, 536 Pa. 315, 639 A.2d 443 (1994).
¶ 11 In Whiteley the appellant was arrested by a police officer in the town of Laramie, Wyoming who was acting on a radio bulletin which named the appellant as an individual who had participated in the robbery of a number of businesses in another Wyoming county, Carbon County. This radio bulletin was issued after the sheriff of Carbon County had obtained an arrest warrant for appellant and his accomplice from a justice of the peace in Carbon County. The Laramie Police Officer who arrested the appellant relied solely on the radio bulletin to effectuate the arrest.
¶ 12 The Supreme Court however, held that the arrest warrant, which was the subject of the radio bulletin, was not supported by probable cause because the sheriff did not set forth enough operative facts in his complaint to justify the arrest warrant being issued. The Court ruled that, as a consequence, the arrest of the appellant in reliance on the radio bulletin about this defective warrant was invalid as a violation of appellant's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Court also rejected the argument that the arrest was valid because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Yong
...Queen, 536 Pa. 315, 639 A.2d 443, 445 (1994) ; Commonwealth v. Wagner, 486 Pa. 548, 406 A.2d 1026, 1030 (1979) ; Commonwealth v. Cotton, 740 A.2d 258, 262–63 (Pa.Super.1999) ; Commonwealth v. Fromal, 392 Pa.Super. 100, 572 A.2d 711, 717 (1990).7 Instantly, there is nothing in the suppressio......
-
Commonwealth v. Heidelberg
...cause for a police officer who receives such information from an N.C.I.C. report to make an on the spot arrest. Commonwealth v. Cotton , 740 A.2d 258, 264-65 (Pa. Super. 1999) [(emphasis added) (holding arresting officer's reliance on hearsay information gathered from NCIC report, broadcast......
-
Com. v. Chernosky
...who conducted the seizure did not have knowledge of the specific facts upon which the report was issued. See also Commonwealth v. Cotton, 740 A.2d 258 (Pa.Super.1999). Similarly, an officer is permitted to conduct a seizure based upon a police radio broadcast when directed to perform the se......
-
Commonwealth v. Bumbarger
...cause for a police officer who receives such information from an N.C.I.C. report to make an on the spot arrest. Commonwealth v. Cotton , 740 A.2d 258, 264-265 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citing Commonwealth v. Feflie , 398 Pa.Super. 622, 581 A.2d 636, 642 (1990) ); see also Commonwealth v. Bolton , ......