O.A., In Interest of

• Decision Date: 20 August 1998
• Parties: In the Interest of O.A., a Minor. Appeal of O.A.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 490

717 A.2d 490

552 Pa. 666

In the Interest of O.A., a Minor.

Appeal of O.A.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Jan. 30, 1997.

Decided Aug. 20, 1998.

Paul W. Muller, Hummelstown, for O.A., appellant.

George H. Matangos, Harrisburg, for the Com., appellee.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.

OPINION ANNOUNCING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

CAPPY, Justice:

The issue presented in this appeal is whether a confidential informant's tip is sufficient to establish the requisite probable cause to effectuate a warrantless arrest. As we find that the confidential informant's tip, alone, did not establish probable cause, we must further address whether there was sufficient corroboration of the tip by the police to establish probable cause. For the reasons which follow, we conclude that the arresting officers failed to sufficiently corroborate the tip to establish probable cause, and reverse the order of the Superior Court.

Appellee Commonwealth's case consisted solely of testimony by Lieutenant John Goshert of the Harrisburg Police Department, which established the following. On June 5, 1994, Lieutenant Goshert received a telephone call from a confidential informant who had previously provided information leading to approximately fifty arrests. On this particular date, the informant reported that two individuals were selling drugs from an abandoned garage. The informant stated that he had viewed O.A. (hereafter Appellant) with drugs for sale in his possession. He described Appellant as being a tall, dark-skinned male in his late teens, and noted that Appellant was wearing a long black windbreaker and shorts. According to the informant, Appellant was accompanied by an Hispanic male, who held the money for Appellant. ¹

Lieutenant Goshert, accompanied by Officers Blasko and Holland, arrived at the abandoned garage in question approximately fifteen minutes after receiving the tip from the confidential informant. The officers did not observe any drug activity before they entered the garage. Upon entering the garage they saw eight men, the majority of whom were Hispanic. Officer Holland approached Appellant because he matched the description given by the informant as the person who possessed the drugs. He ordered Appellant to stand against the wall and to raise his hands. Officer Holland then reached into Appellant's pocket, seizing packets of what turned out to be marijuana.

Since Appellant was under the age of 18, he was tried as a minor. At the conclusion of the testimony at the delinquency hearing defense counsel orally moved to suppress the evidence; the trial court denied this motion. The trial court found that the charges of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), and criminal conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant was adjudicated a delinquent and was placed on formal probation.

After Appellant appealed that determination to the Superior Court, the trial court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.1925 setting forth its reasoning for denying Appellant's suppression motion. The trial court explained that the police had promptly responded after receiving information from a reliable informant, and, upon arriving at the disclosed location, had found individuals matching the descriptions by the informant. Thus, according to the trial court, the officer was justified in arresting Appellant, and seizing the drugs in his possession.

In a memorandum decision, a panel of the Superior Court affirmed the trial court's ruling. The panel concluded that probable cause for a warrantless arrest existed. The Superior Court reasoned that the Commonwealth had demonstrated the informant's basis of knowledge and veracity through evidence that the informant had provided reliable information in the past and had personally observed drugs for sale in Appellant's possession. Therefore, corroboration of the informant's tip was not required in this case. In reaching this decision, the Superior Court panel relied primarily upon this court's plurality decision in Commonwealth v. Jones, 542 Pa. 418, 668 A.2d 114 (1995) (Zappala, J. concurring in result; Cappy, J., dissenting, joined by Flaherty, C.J.), where the plurality found that police corroboration was not necessary where the reliability and basis of knowledge of the confidential informant was evaluated by the magistrate issuing the search warrant.

We granted Appellant's petition for allowance of appeal in order to address the question of whether the Superior Court properly applied Jones in affirming the trial court's refusal to suppress the drugs found in Appellant's possession. ² We conclude that in the instant case the Superior Court erred in concluding that the police officer's had probable cause to effectuate a warrantless arrest.

When reviewing rulings of a suppression court, we must determine whether the record supports that court's factual findings. As long as the record supports the findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error. Commonwealth v. Cortez, 507 Pa. 529, 491 A.2d 111 (1985).

Appellant argues that probable cause did not exist for his arrest, and, therefore, any search incident to that arrest was improper and the evidence illegally obtained. Specifically, Appellant challenges the legality of his search and seizure pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Appellant argues that the Superior Court's decision in the case sub judice effectively erodes the "totality of the circumstances test" by condoning a finding of probable cause based solely upon the bare assertion of a confidential informant. Appellant contends that given the lack of independent corroboration by the arresting officers, the information provided by this confidential informant was insufficient to establish the requisite probable cause. More specifically, the information provided to the police was limited to a description of a person matching Appellant and a location. The confidential informant provided no information as to when the informant saw drugs on Appellant or if he observed any drug transactions. According to Appellant, this is insufficient under both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 8.

On the other hand, the Commonwealth argues that the search of Appellant was a search incident to a lawful arrest. According to the Commonwealth, the reliability of the confidential informant was established by the assertion of the police officer that this informant had led to fifty arrests on prior occasions. Moreover, the Commonwealth asserts that the tip was detailed and specific as to the identity of both the location of the purported criminal activity and the description of Appellant. Therefore, according to the Commonwealth, the tip provided sufficient indicia of reliability to furnish the arresting officers with information at the time of the arrest to satisfy the totality of the circumstances test. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Commonwealth is incorrect.

The instant case is complex because it involves the convergence of a warrantless search with a warrantless arrest. In this case a warrantless arrest was initiated, and a warrantless search was made at that time. Warrantless searches are presumed unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, unless the search falls within a specifically established and well-delineated exception. Commonwealth v. Gibson, 536 Pa. 123, 129, 638 A.2d 203, 206 (1994). One established exception is a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. ³ Therefore, the initial inquiry in the instant case must be whether the warrantless arrest of Appellant was lawful.

In order to be constitutionally valid under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a warrantless arrest must be supported by probable cause. Commonwealth v. Barnett, 484 Pa. 211, 398 A.2d 1019 (1979). Where probable cause to arrest does not exist in the first instance, any evidence seized in a search incident to arrest must be suppressed. Commonwealth v. Lovette, 498 Pa. 665, 450 A.2d 975, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1178, 103 S.Ct. 830, 74 L.Ed.2d 1025 (1983). It is well settled that in determining whether probable cause exists to justify a warrantless arrest, the totality of the circumstances must be considered. Commonwealth v. Banks, 540 Pa. 453, 658 A.2d 752 (1995), citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).

The totality of the circumstances test finds its roots in the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). In Gates, the Court abandoned the more stringent test for probable cause, previously established in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). The Aguilar-Spinelli test was a rigid two-prong analysis requiring a finding of both reliability and basis of knowledge as two separate prongs. In Gates, the Court concluded that in determining the existence of probable cause a more flexible approach was desirable.

In Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476, 503 A.2d 921 (1985), this court adhered to the Gates totality of the circumstances test for determining probable cause under the Fourth Amendment. In addition, however, we held that Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution is satisfied by the Gates test and embraced it as a matter of Pennsylvania constitutional law.

Under the totality of the circumstances test, as refined by more recent cases, probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is...