Commonwealth v. Padilla
| Decision Date | 29 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1110 EDA 2020 |
| Citation | 270 A.3d 1166 (Table) |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Ramon PADILLA, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Appellant, Ramon Padilla, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his stipulated bench trial convictions for persons not to possess firearms, firearms not to be carried without a license, and carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia.1 We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On the evening of April 17, 2019, Officers Ryan Redmond, Mark Wildsmith and Robert McGrody of the Philadelphia Police Department were on routine patrol on the 3100 block of E Street in Philadelphia. (N.T. Suppression Hearing, 10/9/19, at 7). This area was known as a "high-drug and crime area; [with] lots of shootings" and a "lot of drugs sold on [this] block." (Id. at 10). At this time, Officer Redmond had served as a Philadelphia Police Officer for four years. (Id. ) During their patrol, the officers observed a white Toyota Corolla driving northbound on E Street with dark-tinted windows. (Id. at 8). All the windows were illegally tinted except the windshield. (Id. ) As a result of the tinted windows, the officers conducted a traffic stop. (Id. ) Officers Redmond and McGrody approached the vehicle after it stopped. (Id. at 12).
The vehicle had three occupants. (Id. ) Appellant was in the front passenger seat. (Id. ) Officer Redmond approached the passenger's side door and he positioned himself on the passenger side of the vehicle between the front and back seat passenger. (Id. at 15). Officer Redmond testified that Appellant "kept on like adjusting his groin area, like trying to conceal something." (Id. at 8). In the meantime, one of the officers asked for all three of the occupants' identifications. (Id. at 18). The driver and Appellant complied with this request and provided their driver's licenses. (Id. ) Officer Wildsmith took the licenses and returned to the patrol car to verify their information through a computer in the patrol car. (Id. )
After Officer Wildsmith returned to the patrol car from running the licenses, Officer Redmond had a conversation with Appellant. (Id. at 8). Officer Redmond explained that typically when he recovers concealed guns from an individual they are usually located in the subject's waistband without a holster. (Id. at 11).
In addition to his testimony, Officer Redmond's body cam was admitted as exhibit C-1 and viewed during the suppression hearing. (Id. at 12). The body cam, which included audio, captured only a portion of this stop. (See C-1 Body Cam). Officer Redmond's body cam includes the following interaction: Officer Redmond asked: "No weapons in the car?" (Id. ) Nobody responded. (Id. ) The officer then said "Nah?" (Id. ) Again, none of the occupants responded. (Id. ) Appellant failed to admit that he had a firearm on him, and instead he declined to answer. (Id. )
After viewing a portion of the body cam, Officer Redmond testified that "[i]n that clip [of the body cam] you can actually see [Appellant]'s—I think it was his left hand actually on his crotch area." (Id. at 14). Officer Redmond continued by testifying that "a few other times during the stop [Appellant] does the same thing, adjust his groin area."2 (Id. ) Officer Redmond believed Appellant might have a concealed firearm because he typically recovered guns from individuals "usually in their waistband." (Id. at 11). Officer Redmond elaborated on his training and experience as to why he thought Appellant's adjusting his groin area was indicative of a concealed weapon as follows: (Id. at 16).
During his conversation with Appellant, Officer Redmond asked what was inside a shoebox located at Appellant's feet. Appellant said shoes, and then showed them to the officer. (Id. at 19). After this interaction, the officer engaged the backseat passenger in conversation. (Id. ) Officer Redmond then asked Appellant what was in his pocket, and Appellant removed a pill bottle which he showed the officer. (Id. at 20). Subsequently, Officer Redmond had a conversation with Officer Wildsmith, during which Officer Wildsmith informed Officer Redmond that the backseat passenger had an outstanding warrant for trespassing. (Id. at 24). In addition, the officers had a conversation about Appellant where they referenced Appellant as the "front-seat passenger." (Id. at 25). Neither officer could recall the content of that conversation. (Id. at 26, 37). Shortly after this conversation, Officer Redmond asked Officer Wildsmith to "pull [Appellant] out" of the car and then Officer Redmond stated "[l]et's check him out." (Id. at 27).
Officer Redmond testified that the reason he asked Appellant to step out of the car was "[a]fter watching [Appellant] adjust the groin area, I thought [Appellant] was concealing a firearm." (Id. at 15). Further, Officer Redmond explained that the reason for waiting for Officer Wildsmith before requesting Appellant exit the car was that Officer Redmond (Id. at 30). Officer Redmond reiterated his reason for waiting as follows: (Id. ) Immediately after Appellant exited the vehicle, Officer Redmond patted Appellant down and recovered a loaded handgun in Appellant's groin area. (Id. at 8-9).
On July 11, 2019, Appellant filed a motion to suppress. The court held a suppression hearing on October 9, 2019. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the motion to suppress. On October 29, 2019, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration. The court denied the reconsideration motion without a hearing on November 13, 2019. On November 15, 2019, the court convicted Appellant of the above-mentioned crimes after a stipulated waiver trial. On March 4, 2020, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate 18 to 36 months' imprisonment plus two years of probation. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on April 3, 2020. On May 26, 2020, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, and Appellant timely complied. Following the grant of an extension of time, Appellant filed a supplemental Rule 1925(b) statement on June 29, 2020.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
Did the suppression court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress the firearm recovered from his person as fruit of an unlawful frisk unsupported by reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous where Appellant, a compliant passenger in a car lawfully stopped for a traffic violation, adjusted his groin a few times while speaking to police?
"Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court's denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct." Commonwealth v. Williams , 941 A.2d 14, 26 (Pa.Super. 2008) (en banc ) (internal citations omitted).
[W]e may consider only the evidence of the prosecution 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 record supports the findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the court erred in reaching its legal conclusions based upon the facts.
Id. at 27. The reviewing court's scope of review is limited to the evidentiary record of the pre-trial hearing on the suppression motion. In re L.J. , 622 Pa. 126, 79 A.3d 1073 (2013). "It is within the suppression court's sole province as factfinder to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony." Commonwealth v. Luczki , 212 A.3d 530, 542 (Pa.Super. 2019) (quoting Commonwealth v. Clemens , 66 A.3d 373, 378 (Pa.Super. 2013) ). If appellate review of the suppression court's decision "turns on allegations of legal error," then the trial court's legal conclusions are nonbinding on appeal and subject to plenary review. Commonwealth v. Smith , 164 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa.Super. 2017).
Appellant argues that although the police conducted a lawful traffic stop of the vehicle,3 the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to perform a pat-down search for weapons. Appellant contends that he and the other occupants of the car complied with the officers' requests, did not act nervous, and did not attempt to flee. Appellant claims that Officer Redmond's testimony that Appellant adjusted his groin during his interaction with the officer did not support a belief that Appellant was armed and dangerous. Appellant emphasizes that his alleged movements toward his groin area are not seen on Officer Redmond's body cam video, which contradicts the officer's testimony. Further, Appellant asserts that Officer Redmond showed no concern for officer safety because the officer did not comment on Appellant's alleged movements during the traffic stop. Appellant highlights that Officer Redmond did not order Appellant out of the car immediately after he purportedly saw Appellant adjust his groin. Rather, Officer Redmond...
To continue reading
Request your trial