Commonwealth v. Young
Decision Date | 11 May 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 573 EDA 2016,573 EDA 2016 |
Citation | 162 A.3d 524 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Edward YOUNG, Appellee |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Hugh J. Burns, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellant.
Michael L. Erlich, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellant.
Karl Baker, Public Defender, Philadelphia, for appellee.
The Commonwealth appeals from the January 14, 2016 Order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granting the Motion to Suppress filed by Appellee, Edward Young. After careful review, we conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it concluded that police officers lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory detention of Appellee because: (i) Appellee and three officers were engaged in a mere encounter when Appellee volunteered that he had marijuana on his person and began reaching for his pocket; and (ii) as soon as Appellee admitted to being in possession of marijuana, officers had probable cause to arrest Appellee and to search him incident to that arrest. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's Order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
On October 2, 2015, Appellee was arrested and charged with Carrying a Firearm Without a License, Possession of Marijuana, and Carrying a Firearm on Public Streets in Philadelphia.1
Appellee filed a Motion to Suppress, arguing that he had been subject to an illegal detention and arrest. On January 14, 2016, the trial court heard testimony on the Motion to Suppress. In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court detailed the often-repetitive testimony adduced at the hearing. The portions relevant to our disposition are as follows:
Trial Court Opinion, filed 6/21/16, at 1–3 ( ).
At the close of the hearing, the trial court granted Appellee's Motion to Suppress.
The Commonwealth filed a timely Notice of Appeal. Both the Commonwealth and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
The Commonwealth raises the following issue for our review:
Did the lower court err by suppressing defendant's gun on the ground that police had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity where—upon being approached and briefly questioned at a drug sales location in a violent high crime area—[Appellee] said he had "weed" and reached for his pocket?
Our standard of review applicable to suppression determinations is well-settled.
When the Commonwealth appeals from a suppression order, we follow a clearly defined standard of review and consider only the evidence from the defendant's witnesses together with the evidence of the prosecution that, when read in the context of the entire record, remains uncontradicted. The suppression court's findings of fact bind an appellate court if the record supports those findings. The suppression court's conclusions of law, however, are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts.
Commonwealth v. Nester, 551 Pa. 157, 709 A.2d 879, 880–81 (1998).
The trial court's findings of facts are not at issue in the instant appeal. Rather, the Commonwealth argues that the trial court erred in its conclusions of law because police officers had probable cause to arrest Appellee for possession of a controlled substance or, at a minimum, had reasonable suspicion to detain Appellee for investigation and conduct a frisk. Commonwealth's Brief at 11–12. After careful review, we agree.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of our state Constitution protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. In re D.M., 566 Pa. 445, 781 A.2d 1161, 1163 (2001). "To secure the right of citizens to be free from ... [unreasonable searches and seizures], courts in Pennsylvania require law enforcement officers to demonstrate ascending levels of suspicion to justify their interactions with citizens as those interactions become more intrusive." Commonwealth v. Beasley, 761 A.2d 621, 624 (Pa. Super. 2000). Our Supreme Court has defined three levels of interaction between citizens and police officers: (1) mere encounter, (2) investigative detention, and (3) custodial detention. See Commonwealth v. Fuller, 940 A.2d 476, 478 (Pa. Super. 2007).
This Court has explained the three levels of interaction as follows:
Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 116 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted).
In the instant case, the trial court found that the interaction between officers and Appellee rose to the level of an investigative detention because "they made a show of authority by having three officers stand in front of him, during questioning, commanded [Appellee] to stop reaching for his pocket, and searched his pockets." Trial Court Opinion at 8.
The trial court's analysis ignores the intervening acts of Appellee. Before officers ever "commanded [Appellee] to stop reaching for his pocket" or "searched his pockets[,]" Appellee voluntarily told officers that he had marijuana on his person. As soon as Appellee volunteered that information, police had probable cause to arrest Appellee for possession of a controlled substance. See Commonwealth v. Stokes, 480 Pa. 38, 389 A.2d 74, 78 (1978) ( ); Commonwealth v. Kondash, 808 A.2d 943, 949 (Pa. Super. 2002) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Updike
...with the evidence of the prosecution that, when read in the context of the entire record, remains uncontradicted." Commonwealth v. Young, 162 A.3d 524, 527 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). "Where the [trial] court's factual findings are supported by the record, we are bound by these fi......
-
Commonwealth v. Luczki
...officer's mere employment, that conveys a demand for compliance or threat of tangible consequences from refusal. Commonwealth v. Young , 162 A.3d 524, 529 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citing Lyles, supra at 353-54, 97 A.3d at 304 ).An investigative detention, unlike a mere encounter, constitutes a sei......
-
Commonwealth v. Carper, 1715 WDA 2016
...with the evidence of the prosecution that, when read in the context of the entire record, remains uncontradicted." Commonwealth v. Young, 162 A.3d 524, 527 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). "Where the [trial] court's factual findings are supported by the record, we are bound by these fi......
-
Commonwealth v. Cunningham
...dispositive on their own or individually applicable to Cunningham, combined to support reasonable suspicion for the pat-down search. See Young , supra .Specifically, the undisputed evidence reveals that, after Officer Bucek and his partner approached the three men, including Cunningham, the......