Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1446-2007 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : CHESLEY LAMAR RIFFEY : CP-21-CR-1447-2007 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : JUSTIN E. RIFFEY : CP-21-CR-1446-2007 IN RE: MOTIONS OF DEFENDANTS TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., November 6, 2007:-- Chesley Lamar Riffey is charged with unlawful delivery or manufacture or 1 possession with intent to deliver a schedule I controlled substance, unlawful 2 possession of a schedule I controlled substance, and unlawful possession of drug 3 paraphernalia. Justin E. Riffey is charged with possession of a small amount of 4 marijuana. Defendants filed motions to suppress evidence upon which a hearing was conducted on October 31, 2007. We find the following facts. Troy McNair is a detective in the Lower Allen Township Police Department, Cumberland County, who has extensive experience with arrests for illegal drugs. At __________ 1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) and 18 Pa.C.S. § 306. 2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16) and 18 Pa.C.S. § 306. 3 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32) and 18 Pa.C.S. § 306. 4 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(31) and 18 Pa.C.S. § 306. CP-21-CR-1447-2007 CP-21-CR-1446-2007 approximately 7:00 p.m. on May 26, 2007, McNair was in plain clothes in an unmarked car at the Capital City Mall in Lower Allen Township. He saw a young man (Chesley Riffey) with a backpack on walking between some parked vehicles. McNair considered that unusual. He saw Riffey walk to the side of the shopping center to where he was near a dumpster where he met another young man (Justin Riffey). Justin had a Garfield’s employee shirt on. Garfields is a restaurant at the shopping center. McNair saw Chesley look around as if to observe whether anyone was watching him. He then saw Chesley give an item, which he could not identify, to Justin in exchange for money. The two men then separated. McNair, who was personally aware that illegal drug sales occur at the Capital City Mall, believed that he had observed a drug sale. Chesley walked to a vehicle and was about to get in. McNair walked up to him, told him that he was a police officer, and that another officer in uniform was on the way. McNair asked Chesley if he could talk to him and told him that he was not in trouble or under arrest. McNair told him that he thought what he just observed was a drug sale. Chesley said that he had sold some cigarettes to his brother. McNair asked him if he could search him and his backpack, telling him twice that he did not have to consent to a search. Chesley said he had nothing to hide and that he could search him and his backpack. McNair found on his person two packets of folded cash, one containing $65 and the other $50 which he knows is a way drug dealers often handle their cash. He found marijuana in his backpack. McNair then asked Joshua Sheaffer, a Lower Allen Township Community -2- CP-21-CR-1447-2007 CP-21-CR-1446-2007 Service Officer (not a sworn police officer) to find the other man at Garfield’s and bring him to him. Joshua Sheaffer, who had a Community Service Officer’s uniform on, went to Garfield’s and found Justin Riffey. He told him that Officer McNair needed to talk to him and asked him to go with him. Justin asked why, and Sheaffer told him he was not Miranda sure. Justin went with Sheaffer. Officer McNair read warnings to Justin, which Justin said he understood. McNair told him why he had asked to talk to him. Justin said he had met his brother but nothing illegal had occurred. Patrolman Samuel Morgan of the Lower Allen Police Department was present and did a pat-down of Justin. During the pat-down the officer felt what he thought was a plastic baggie which he suspected contained marijuana. Officer McNair asked Justin to consent to a search of his person and Justin refused. McNair arrested him for possession of marijuana, cuffed him, searched his person and found a bag of marijuana. The brothers were placed in separate police cars. Chesley then gave consent to search his vehicle in which Officer McNair found a smoking device (drug paraphernalia). The men were transported to the Lower Allen Police station. Chesley Miranda was read his rights which he waived, after which he gave a written statement admitting that he had delivered marijuana that day to his brother Justin. Justin was Miranda again given his rights, which he waived, after which he admitted that his brother Chesley had delivered marijuana to him that day. -3- CP-21-CR-1447-2007 CP-21-CR-1446-2007 CHESLEY RIFFEY Chesley Riffey maintains that his detention was illegal; therefore, all evidence gained as a result of his illegal detention must be suppressed. The Commonwealth, Commonwealth v. LaMonte, citing 859 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. 2004), maintains that LaMonte defendant was subject to a valid investigatory detention. The facts in , were: At approximately 8 p.m. on November 9, 2002, Officer Coffman of the Falls Township Police Department was in uniform on routine car patrol in the area of the Friendly Mart on 1180 Bristol Pike. He observed four individuals in the parking lot of the Friendly Mart, which was closed at that hour. He watched three of the individuals walk from a car to the side of the building. At this point, Officer Coffman pulled into a nearby parking lot and continued to watch them. In his experience as a Falls Township police officer, he knew this to be a high crime area, rife with burglaries and narcotics transactions. Officer Coffman radioed for back-up, and Officer Fortunato responded. The officers drove their police cars to different locations and continued to monitor the individuals. While the officers watched, the individuals returned to the car, huddled around it, and then Appellant and one other man walked back to the building. Shortly thereafter, the other individuals walked away from the car. Based on their knowledge and experience in law enforcement, the officers believed that they had witnessed a narcotics transaction, and proceeded directly to the Friendly Mart parking lot to investigate. Once in the parking lot, Officer Coffman posed a general question to the assembled males: “What are you guys doing?”, and asked if he could speak with them. Appellant volunteered. . . . Officer Coffman noticed that while he was questioning Appellant, Appellant kept fidgeting with his belt and groin area as if to conceal something. Officer Coffman then walked away from Appellant and spoke with Officer Fortunato about the individuals. Officer Fortunato said he knew several of them and that they had been involved with burglaries, narcotics and weapons. Officer Coffman walked back over to Appellant and asked if he could pat him down. Appellant agreed. The officer recovered two pipes, scissors and a piece of wire from Appellant’s pockets. Subsequent laboratory testing revealed that at least one of the pipes contained cocaine residue. -4- CP-21-CR-1447-2007 CP-21-CR-1446-2007 The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence which was denied, and he was found guilty of a drug offense. On appeal he challenged the denial of the motion to suppress evidence, maintaining that his initial detention was illegal and tainted the subsequent search rendering it involuntary. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the conviction, stating: . . . the trial court found that the initial detention was a valid investigative detention based on a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Appellant and his cohorts were engaged in illegal narcotics activity. . . . Appellant was with a group of people, at night, in the parking lot of a closed convenience store. Based upon his experience as a police officer in this township, Officer Coffman testified that he knew this was a high crime area with frequent burglaries and narcotics transactions. Officer Coffman observed Appellant and the other individuals from two different vantage points, and noted that they were huddling by a car and then walking away to the side of the store in small numbers and then returning to the car. He called for another officer and then conferred with him about the individuals under observation. Based on both their experience as police officers and their particularized experience in this locale, the officers had a reasonable basis to suspect that Appellant and the others were engaged in illegal narcotics transactions. (Citations omitted.) sub judice, In the case the incident occurred in the early evening in the public areas of a shopping mall that was open. While Officer McNair considered it unusual for a young man to be walking in the parking lot with a backpack on, he did not say why. He then saw that young man meet at the side of the shopping center with another young man who was wearing a shirt that identified him as being an employee of a restaurant at the shopping mall. He saw the one man look around then exchange something, which he could not identify, for money with the other man. Chesley Riffey -5- CP-21-CR-1447-2007 CP-21-CR-1446-2007 was then subject to an investigatory detention. LaMonte, Unlike the facts in there is no evidence that the Capital City Mall is a high crime area rife with narcotics transactions. The mall was open in contrast with the LaMonte. closed business in There were only two persons involved here and one was identifiable as an employee of a restaurant in the mall. An investigatory stop is justified only if the detaining officer can point to specific and articulable facts which, in conjunction with rational inferences derived from those facts, give rise to a reasonable Commonwealth v. suspicion of criminal activity and therefore warrant the intrusion. E.M., 735 A.2d 654 (Pa. 1999). Given the totality of the circumstances, this isolated exchange between two young men in the parking lot of an open shopping mall did not provide Officer McNair, even in light of his experience, a reasonable basis to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot. There was no legal justification for the investigatory detention of Chesley Riffey. All evidence gained by the police as a result of that 5 investigation must be suppressed. JUSTIN RIFFEY Justin Riffey was summoned by the police from his place of work and subject to an investigative detention. He maintains that this detention was illegal; therefore, all evidence gained as a result must be suppressed. His motion will be granted for the __________ 5 This resolution makes it unnecessary to consider the other claims of defendant that evidence must be suppressed because (1) his consent to search his person and backpack was involuntary, and (2) the statement he made at the police station was illegally obtained. -6- CP-21-CR-1447-2007 CP-21-CR-1446-2007 same reason the motion to suppress evidence by Chesley Riffey was granted. His detention was illegal because the police, despite their experience, did not have a basis to reasonably conclude that criminal activity was afoot. Any evidence gained by the 6 police as a result of that investigation must be suppressed For the foregoing reasons, the following orders are entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of November, 2007, (1) At 1447-2007, all evidence gained by the police against Chesley Riffey IS SUPPRESSED. during and after his initial detention, (2) At 1446-2007, all evidence gained by the police against Justin Riffey during IS SUPPRESSED. and after his initial detention, By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. 6 This resolution makes it unnecessary to consider the other claims of defendant that evidence must be suppressed because (1) the pat-down of his person was illegal as there was no reasonable basis for the police to conclude that he was armed and dangerous, (2) his arrest was without probable cause making the resulting search and seizure illegal, and (3) the statement he made at the police station was illegally obtained. -7- CP-21-CR-1447-2007 CP-21-CR-1446-2007 Christylee L. Peck, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Ellen K. Barry, Esquire For Chesley Riffey Charles P. Mackin, Esquire For Justin Riffey :sal -8- COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : CHESLEY LAMAR RIFFEY : CP-21-CR-1447-2007 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : JUSTIN E. RIFFEY : CP-21-CR-1446-2007 IN RE: MOTIONS OF DEFENDANTS TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of November, 2007, (1) At 1447-2007, all evidence gained by the police against Chesley Riffey IS SUPPRESSED. during and after his initial detention, (2) At 1446-2007, all evidence gained by the police against Justin Riffey during IS SUPPRESSED. and after his initial detention, By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Christylee L. Peck, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Ellen K. Barry, Esquire For Chesley Riffey Charles P. Mackin, Esquire For Justin Riffey :sal CP-21-CR-1447-2007 CP-21-CR-1446-2007 -2-