Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-1967 ans 97-1968 criminalCOMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : : NO. 97-1967 CRIMINAL CHERIE L. HARRIS, NO. 97-1968 CRIMINAL Defendant : IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, ~ ~(~1 {?~ ~, after a suppression headng and careful consideration of both parties' briefs, Defendant's motion for suppression of evidence is denied. By the Court,  j. Mary-Jo Mullen, Esquire Cumberland County District Attorney For the Commonwealth Stephen D. Kulla, Esquire 9 East Main Street Waynesboro, PA 17268 For the Defendant COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V, : NO. 97-1967 CRIMINAL CHERIE L. HARRIS, NO. 97-1968 CRIMINAL Defendant : IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OPINION HOFFER, P.J,: In this opinion, this Court addresses Defendant's motion for suppression of evidence. The facts of this case are as follows: on the morning of May 28, 1997, Detective Richard Killinger of the Mid-Cumberland Valley Regional Police received a tip from a confidential informant1 stating that Cherie L. Harris, Defendant, was operating a vehicle while her driver's license was under suspension. The informant told the detective that the Defendant was employed as a waitress at the Toll Gate Restaurant, that Defendant drove a blue Chevrolet that could be found in the parking lot next to the restaurant and that the Defendant would leave the restaurant shortly after 4:30 p.m., operating her vehicle while her ~ At the preliminary hearing in this matter, Officer Worthington testified that the tip was anonymous. At the suppression hearing, Detective Killinger, who received the tip, testified that the tip came from a confidential informant with whom Killinger was familiar and who had previously given the detective reliable information. Based upon the testimony at the suppression hearing, the Court finds that the tip came from a confidential informant. 97-1967 CRIMINAL TERM 97-1968 CRIMINAL TERM ddver's license was suspended. Later the same day, the detective passed this information on to Officers Worthington and Shubert and asked them to follow up on the tip. The detective did not tell the officers the source of his information. The officers attempted to obtain the Defendant's driving record from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. They were unable to do so because the officers did not have the correct spelling of the Defendant's name. Although the officers were unable to determine the status of the Defendant's drivers license, they proceeded to the Toll Gate Restaurant to verify the other portions of the tip. At the restaurant, the officers found a blue Chevrolet parked in the lot and witnessed a female waitress exit the restaurant at 4:50 p.m. The officers observed the Defendant get in the blue Chevrolet and drive out of the Toll Gate Restaurant parking lot. The officers followed. After a short distance, Officer Worthington stopped the vehicle and asked Defendant for identification. Defendant did not produce her driver's license upon request. From the patrol car, the officer contacted the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation with the car's license plate number and the correct spelling of the Defendant's name. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation informed the officer that the Defendant's driver's license was suspended. 2 97-1967 CRIMINAL TERM 97-1968 CRIMINAL TERM Officer Worthington issued a citation to the Defendant for driving with a suspended license. He told her not to drive her vehicle and offered to drive her home. Defendant declined the offer and told him that her boyfriend would pick her up. About thirty minutes later, another officer from the Mid-Cumberland Valley Regional Police observed the Defendant driving her vehicle. A second citation for driving with a suspended license was issued and mailed directly to the Defendant's residence. Discussion Defendant has filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop of her vehicle on May 28, 1997. This Court finds that both the initial stop made by the officers and the second citation mailed to the Defendant are legal. In Alabama v. White, 110 L. Ed.2d 301 (1990)2, the Supreme Court upheld a stop of a defendant's vehicle based upon an anonymous tip. In White, officers received a tip that a woman would exit a certain apartment complex in a brown Plymouth station wagon with a broken tailight. Id._~. at 306-07. The officers were told the car would be traveling to a local motel and that the driver would be holding drugs inside a brown attache case. Id__. at 307. The officers proceeded to the apartment complex, observed a woman exit in a brown station wagon and followed 2 Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L. Ed.2d 301 (1990). 3 97-1967 CRIMINAL TERM 97-1968 CRIMINAL TERM her. She took the most direct route toward the motel. When she turned on to the street where the motel was located the officers stopped the vehicle. The officers found the brown attache case and it did contain drugs. The defendant was arrested and charged with possession of drugs. Id. The Supreme Court recognized the fact that an anonymous tip of this sort, alone, does not provide the police with sufficient reliability to justify an investigatory stop. Alabama v. White, 110 L. Ed.2d 301,308 (1990). However, the Court found it important to note that the tip in White was more reliable because it contained elements not easily obtained, including the defendant's itinerary, which could be tested for reliability. Id. at 310. When signifigant portions of the tip were verified by observing and following the vehicle, the court held that the police had obtained sufficient information to justify the investigatory stop. Id. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has endorsed the White decision, stating an investigatory stop based upon an anonymous tip may be appropriate "provided the tip is sufficiently corroborated by independent police work to give rise to a reasonable belief that the tip was correct." Commonwealth v. Jackson, 548 Pa.484, 490, 698 A.2d 571,574 (1997) (holding a stop to be improper where police received an anonymous tip physically describing a person carrying a gun but included no information that could have been independently corroborated to give 97-1967 CRIMINAL TERM 97-1968 CRIMINAL TERM the police a reasonable belief that the tip was correct). "Essentially, the corroboration requirement is based on the principle that because an informant is right about some things, he or she is probably right about other facts also, including the allegation that the object of the tip is engaged in criminal activity." Id_.~. at 490-91,698 A.2d at 574. In Jackson, the court also recognized that tips from confidential informants, known to the police, may have sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigatory stop where the identical tip from an anonymous source would not justify a stop. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 548 Pa. 484, 490, 698 A.2d 571,574 (1997). See also Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L. Ed.2d 612 (1972); Commonwealth v. Anderson, 481 Pa. 292, 392 A.2d 1298 (1978); Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 547 Pa. 652, 692 A.2d 1068 (1997). The reasoning behind this principle is that known informants risk prosecution for filing a false claim if the tip is untrue. Jackson at 490, 698 A.2d at 574. In the case at bar, this Court has determined that the tip came from a confidential informant. Based upon the known informant's information and after independent verification through the officers' observations, sufficient indicia of reliabiltity to believe that the Defendant was engaged in illegal activity existed at the time of the stop. The initial stop of the defendant's vehicle is therefore justified. 5 97-1967 CRIMINAL TERM 97-1968 CRIMINAL TERM Our analysis of the relevant case law also leads us to believe, even if the tip came from an anonymous source, the investigatory stop of the Defendant was justified because the officers corroborated major portions of the tip before the stop was made. The tipster made predictions of the Defendant's future actions. When the police observed the Defendant leaving the restaurant during the predicted time period, dressed as a waitress and driving away in a blue Chevrolet, they formed a reasonable belief that the entire tip was correct. The Court holds that the police formulated a reasonable belief that criminal activity was taking place based upon the information received and verified from the tip. Therefore, the initial stop of the Defendant's vehicle was appropriate and all evidence collected, as a result of the stop, is admissible. Because the first stop was proper, the evidence of the second citation is also admissible. Defendant's motion is therefore denied.