Commonwealth v. Stark

• Decision Date: 28 April 2023
• Docket Number: 759 WDA 2022,J-A02014-23
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. MICHAEL STARK
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. MICHAEL STARK

No. 759 WDA 2022

No. J-A02014-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

April 28, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered June 24, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at No(s) CP-63-CR-0000976-2021.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM

OLSON J.:

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from an order entered on June 24, 2022, which granted a motion to suppress filed by Appellee, Michael Stark. The Commonwealth contends that the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law in granting Appellee's motion. After careful review we reverse the trial court's suppression ruling and remand for further proceedings.

The trial court summarized the relevant facts established at the May 31, 2022 suppression hearing as follows:

On January 2, 2022, Officer [Richard] Oddi of the Cecil Township Police initiated a traffic stop of a silver Ford Mustang [because] the registered owner of the vehicle [possessed] a suspended drivers' license. The driver of the vehicle matched the profile of the registered owner, [Appellee]. The officer was in an unmarked vehicle but wore full uniform. After approaching the vehicle, [Officer Oddi] confirmed that [Appellee] . . . was the driver. [Appellee] acknowledged that his license was suspended and[, upon Officer Oddi's request for his license and registration, Appellee gave him] a credit card for identification. The passenger of the vehicle provided a drivers' license. [Officer Oddi] took the credit card and license to his patrol vehicle, [and instructed] the occupants of the [vehicle] to "sit tight["] and "[not to] get out of the car." [After several minutes, Officer Oddi] again returned to the vehicle to ask [Appellee] his address, which he provided [via] two traffic citations[. During this interaction, Officer Oddi] asked

[Appellee] where he was coming [from], to which [Appellee] responded, "[c]ame from Pittsburgh[, Pennsylvania], came to see him . . . not even gonna [sic] lie, I came to smoke with him."

[Officer Oddi's] next question to [Appellee] was, "Did you have some already?" [Appellee] admitted that he smoked about an hour prior. [Officer Oddi then asked if either Appellee or the passenger had a medical marijuana card. Appellee indicated he did not. The passenger stated he did have a medical marijuana card, but it was not with him. Lastly, Officer Oddi] asked if there [was] any marijuana in the vehicle, to which [Appellee] answered, "Yes."

Officer Oddi then returne[d] to his patrol vehicle. When another officer arrive[d] at the scene[, the officer asked what was] going on [and] Officer Oddi responde[d], "[Appellee] admitted to smoking an hour and a half ago, said there [was] weed in the car, someone has a medical marijuana card but it [is] not him . . . gonna [sic] take the driver out first."

The officers then instructed [Appellee] to exit the vehicle. [Appellee] consented to a search of his person and his vehicle. The officers did not find any other paraphernalia or contraband in the vehicle or on [Appellee]. The passenger was arrested for possession and placed in the patrol vehicle. The officers [] subjected [Appellee] to [Standardized Field Sobriety Tests ("SFST") and Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement ("ARIDE")] field testing. Officer Oddi testified that the field testing revealed [that Appellee] showed signs of impairment, but did not so indicate in either the affidavit of probable cause or his testimony [during the suppression hearing] which test [revealed] signs of impairment, nor was it evident from the bodycam footage. [Appellee] was [subsequently] arrested and taken to the hospital for blood testing, to which he consented. The blood testing results indicated positive [] marijuana and its metabolites.

Trial Court Order, 6/24/22, 1-3.

The Commonwealth charged Appellee with three counts of driving under the influence ("DUI"): controlled substance - schedule I; DUI: controlled substance - Section II or III; and driving while license is suspended or revoked DUI. On March 23, 2022, Appellee filed an omnibus pre-trial motion, seeking to suppress the evidence obtained from the sobriety field testing, as well as his blood test results. Appellee argued that, at the time Officer Oddi asked him if "he [already] smoke[d] some marijuana" he was subjected to a custodial interrogation, warranting the issuance of Miranda^[1] warnings. Appellee's Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion, 3/23/22, at 7. Hence, Appellee claimed Officer Oddi's failure to issue Miranda warnings rendered "all of [his] answers to [police] questioning, . . . [the] field sobriety testing, [the] observations and the blood draw . . . fruit of the poisonous tree requiring suppression." Id. As such, Appellee asked the trial court to suppress his statement indicating he smoked marijuana an hour prior to driving, together with the results of his blood test.

A suppression hearing was held on May 31, 2022, during which Officer Oddi testified. See N.T. Suppression Hearing, 5/31/22, at 1-33. On June 24, 2022, the trial court granted Appellee's motion. Trial Court Order, 6/24/22, at 1-6. Specifically, the trial court held that Appellee was "in custody" after Officer Oddi initiated the traffic stop and then told Appellee to "'sit tight' and remain in his vehicle." Id. at 4. In addition, the trial court concluded that Officer Oddi's question, "[d]id you have some already?", lodged in response to Appellee's admission that he "intend[ed] to smoke marijuana once he reached his destination" was "the functional equivalent of interrogation" and, as such, Appellee was subjected to a custodial interrogation, necessitating the issuance of Miranda warnings. Id. Because Officer Oddi failed to Mirandize Appellee, the trial court held that Appellee's admission that he smoked marijuana an hour prior to driving was inadmissible. Id. In addition, the trial court held that, absent Appellee's statement, Officer Oddi "did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct the field testing and subsequently arrest [Appellee] for suspicion of DUI." Id. at 6. Based upon the foregoing, the trial court suppressed the evidence obtained as a result, i.e., Appellee's field test and blood test results. Id.

On June 29, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court's June 24, 2022, interlocutory order and, within the Commonwealth's notice of appeal, the Commonwealth properly certified that the order "terminates or substantially handicaps the prosecution." Commonwealth's Notice of Appeal, 6/29/22, at 1; see also Pa.R.A.P. 311(d).^[2] The Commonwealth raises the following issue on appeal:^[3]

Does the initial questioning during a roadside investigation regarding the driver's use of marijuana require the defendant to be given Miranda warnings?

Commonwealth Brief at 6.

When reviewing a challenge to a suppression ruling, our standard of review 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 [defense] prevailed before the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the [defense] and so much of the evidence for the [Commonwealth] 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. Smith, 164 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted and formatting altered).

Herein, the Commonwealth argues that the trial court erroneously suppressed the incriminating statement Appellee made to police during a lawful traffic stop. i.e., Appellee's admission that he smoked marijuana before driving.^[4] In particular, the Commonwealth argues that, under the precedent set forth by the United States Supreme Court, "police need only give Miranda warnings" if a motorist is "placed under arrest or when the questioning of a suspect is so prolonged or coercive as to approximate the atmosphere of a station house interrogation." Commonwealth Brief at 17. Because Appellee was only subjected to a temporary investigatory detention and was not, in fact, "in custody" at the time he made the challenged statement, the Commonwealth argues that the trial court erred in granting suppression because "Miranda warnings [were] not essential." Id. We agree.

Under Pennsylvania law, there are three categories of police-citizen interactions. As our Supreme Court has clearly articulated:

The first of these is a "mere encounter" (or request for information) which need not be supported by any level of suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop or to respond. The second, an "investigative detention" must be supported by a reasonable suspicion; it subjects a suspect to a stop and a period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of an arrest. Finally, an arrest or "custodial detention" must be supported by probable cause.

Commonwealth v. Gutierrez, 36 A.3d 1104, 1107 (Pa Super. 2012), appeal denied, 48 A.3d 1247 (Pa. 2012), quoting Commonwealth v. Ellis, 662 A.2d 1043, 1047 (P...