Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-2767-2007 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : MYCOL ROBINSON : CP-21-CR-2767-2007 IN RE: MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., March 25, 2008:-- Defendant, Mycol Robinson, is charged with two counts of unlawful possession 1 with intent to deliver a schedule II controlled substance (cocaine). He filed an omnibus pretrial motion to suppress all evidence of illegal drugs seized by the Pennsylvania State Police. A hearing was conducted on March 14, 2008. We find the following facts. On April 5, 2005, Trooper Roger Hall of the Pennsylvania State Police was on patrol in a marked car in West Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County. He was notified by surveillance officers, who were then conducting a drug investigation, that a green Honda had been located at the nearby home of a suspect. When the officers learned that the vehicle had been driven from that home, they radioed Trooper Hall, who was in the vicinity, and asked him to stop the vehicle for the purposes of identifying the driver. Trooper Hall saw the green Honda on Route 641 and followed it for about four miles. Using his speedometer, he made a legal clock of the vehicle at 45 miles per __________ 1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). CP-21-CR-2767-2007 hour in a 40 mile per hour zone. He stopped the Honda, which was driven by defendant, Mycol Robinson. Trooper Hall was going to stop the vehicle even if he had not observed a summary Vehicle Code violation. Trooper Hall did a computer check on Robinson from his patrol car and learned that there was an active warrant for his arrest in Dauphin County on a charge of harassment by communication. The trooper issued a written warning to Robinson for speeding. By this time, Corporal Daniel Housel of the Pennsylvania State Police had arrived. He knew about the ongoing drug investigation and that Robinson was a main suspect for delivering narcotics to the home that the other officers were surveilling. It was decided to take Robinson into custody on the active warrant. Corporal Housel told him that he was under investigation for delivering narcotics to a nearby residence and asked him to consent to a search of the Honda. Robinson would not consent. Pursuant to state police regulations, and as a precaution for his own safety, Corporal Housel patted Robinson down before putting him in handcuffs and placing him into a patrol car. The corporal felt a large baseball size object in the area of Robinson’s crotch between his legs which, given his experience in hundreds of drug investigations, he immediately recognized as a large amount of illegal drugs. He seized the object which turned out to contain 55.7 grams of crack cocaine, 15.2 grams of powder cocaine, and 4.6 grams of marijuana. Defendant was taken to a state police barracks. An additional 15 grams of cocaine was discovered in his underwear. -2- CP-21-CR-2767-2007 Defendant seeks to suppress all of the evidence of contraband seized by the state police. He maintains that he was subjected to an illegal pretextual stop which, pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, requires the suppression of all of the contraband thereafter seized. d Whren v. United States In , 517 U.S. 806, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed. 2 89 (1996), the United States Supreme Court was asked to adopt a “would have” test, in contrast to a “could have” test, for determining what constitutes an unconstitutional pretextual stop of a motor vehicle. The “would have” test asks whether under the same circumstances a reasonable police officer would have made the stop in the absence of the invalid purpose. The “could have” test asks whether, at the time of the stop, the police officer reasonably believed the driver was committing a traffic offense, and whether the law authorized a stop for such an offense. The Supreme Court adopted the “could have” test. In the present case, Trooper Hall, while following the Honda driven by defendant, had reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was speeding. Therefore, notwithstanding that he would have stopped the vehicle as requested by the drug surveillance officers even if he had not legally clocked defendant for speeding, the stop was constitutionally permissible. After the stop, defendant was properly taken into custody on the outstanding warrant, and the seizure of drugs from his person was legal. Therefore, the following order is entered: -3- CP-21-CR-2767-2007 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _________ day of March, 2008, the motion of Defendant to IS DENIED suppress evidence, . By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Jaime Keating, Esquire Assistant District Attorney George Matangos, Esquire For Defendant :sal -4-