Commonwealth v. Thran
Decision Date | 02 May 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 1155 MDA 2017,1155 MDA 2017 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Brian Lee THRAN, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Brian McNeil, Public Defender, York, for appellant.
James E. Zamkotowicz, Assistant District Attorney, York, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Brian Lee Thran appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on July 3, 2017, in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, following his conviction at a bench trial on four counts of driving under the influence (DUI).1 In this timely appeal, Thran argues the trial court erred in failing to suppress the physical evidence. Thran asserts said evidence was improperly obtained after he was subjected to an investigative detention that was not supported by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. After a thorough review of the submissions by the parties, relevant law, and the certified record, we affirm.
The underlying facts of this matter are taken from the trial court opinion dated September 29, 2017 and the notes of testimony of the suppression hearing held on February 17, 2017.
On September 17, 2016, Northern York County Regional Police Officer (NYCRP) Patrick McBreen was working the night shift. N.T. at 5–6.
Trial Court Opinion at 2–3 (citations to N.T. omitted).
We further note that Officer McBreen testified the garage was closed and there were no other cars around at time of his interaction with Thran. N.T. at 30.
The standard of review for an order denying a suppression motion is as follows:
Commonwealth v. Mackey , 177 A.3d 221, 226 (Pa. Super. 2017).
Because this matter also involves a claim of improper search and seizure, we also consider the factors that delineate the differences between a mere encounter and an investigative detention.3
Id. at 226–27 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis in original).
Thran argues that he was subjected to an investigative detention at the time Officer McBreen turned on his overhead emergency lights. Further, the tip Officer McBreen responded to was insufficient to support the investigative detention.
We begin by noting that the trial court did not make a specific factual finding that Officer McBreen activated his overhead emergency lights. As quoted above, the trial court noted that Officer McBreen indicated his lights might have been on. However, we accept that the lights were activated as a fact because the trial court's analysis does not address the scenario where the lights were not activated. All parties agree that if Officer McBreen did not activate his overhead emergency lights, the encounter between Thran and Officer McBreen would have been a mere encounter and the suppression of evidence would not be warranted. If the trial court determined that the overhead emergency lights had not been activated, the trial court would have simply resolved the matter on those grounds. Because the trial court did not do so, and fully analyzed the issue under the premise that the overhead emergency lights were activated, we accept that as a fact.
Whether the overhead emergency lights were activated is important because case law on this issue has changed from the time of the suppression hearing to today.4 In November, 2017, our Supreme Court issued its decision in Commonwealth v. Livingstone , ––– Pa. ––––, 174 A.3d 609 (2017). In that decision, the Supreme Court held that when the police activate the overhead emergency lights, no reasonable person would believe he or she was free to leave. Accordingly, the person is subject to an investigative detention when the lights are activated. Specifically, Livingston stated:
It is undeniable that emergency lights on police vehicles in this Commonwealth serve important safety purposes, including ensuring that the police vehicle is visible to traffic, and signaling to a stopped motorist that it is a police officer, as opposed to a potentially dangerous stranger, who is approaching. See Johonoson , 844 A.2d at 562. Moreover, we do not doubt that a reasonable person may recognize that a police officer might activate his vehicle's emergency lights for safety purposes, as opposed to a command to stop. Nevertheless, upon consideration of the realities of everyday life, particularly the relationship between ordinary citizens and law enforcement, we simply cannot pretend that a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not interpret the activation of emergency lights on a police vehicle as a signal that he or she is not free to leave.
After citing relevant portions of the Pennsylvania Driver's Manual and Motor Vehicle Code, our Supreme Court continued:
The fact that motorists risk being charged with violations of the Motor Vehicle Code if they incorrectly assume they are free to leave after a patrol car, with its emergency lights activated, has pulled behind or alongside of them further supports our conclusion that a reasonable person in Appellant's shoes would not have felt free to leave.
Accordingly,...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Commonwealth v. Yim
-
Commonwealth v. Savino
... ... reasonable person in [Livingstone's] shoes would not have ... felt free to leave ... Livingstone , 174 A.3d. at 621-22 (emphasis added) ... (internal citations omitted). [ 5 ] See also Commonwealth v ... Thran , 185 A.3d 1041, 1044-45 (Pa. Super. 2018) (where ... officer activated emergency overhead lights when stopping ... defendant, Court acknowledged interaction between defendant ... and officer would have been mere encounter if lights had not ... been activated; however, ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Stevens
... ... properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions ... of law of the courts below are ... subject to our plenary review ... Our scope of review is ... limited to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing ... Commonwealth v. Thran, 185 A.3d 1041, 1043 (Pa ... Super. 2018) (citations omitted) ... We ... begin by recognizing the three categories of interaction ... between police and citizens: ... [T]he first of these is a "mere encounter" (or ... request for information) ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Alford, J-A14010-21
...to our plenary review . . . Our scope of review is limited to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.Commonwealth v. Thran, 185 A.3d 1041, 1043 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations omitted). The record reflects Appellant did not raise any constitutional challenges to the body search in h......