Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-1309 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH JOSHUA J. SKINNER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-1309 CRIMINAL TERM 1N RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE OLER. !.. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~df~ day of November, 1999, upon consideration of Defendant's omnibus pretrial motion in the form of a motion to suppress, following a hearing, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is granted. BY THE COURT, Michael S. Ferguson, Esq. Assistant District Attorney James M. Bach, Esq. 352 South Sporting Hill Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Defendant irc COMMONWEALTH JOSHUA J. SKINNER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-1309 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE OLER, J, OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Oler, J., November 8, 1999. In this criminal case, Defendant has been charged with unlawful possession of a small amount of marijuana, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and unlawful purchase, consumption, possession or transportation of liquor or malt or brewed beverages. For disposition at this time is an omnibus pretrial motion in the form of a motion to suppress filed on behalf of Defendant. A hearing was held on Defendant's motion on October 11, 1999, and briefs have been submitted by the Commonwealth and Defendant. For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendant's motion to suppress will be granted. STATEMENT OF FACTS On Friday, March 26, 1999, at about 10:20 plm., a police officer with Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, was patrolling the parking lot of a certain motel in the municipality in a police car. He observed three cars parked in close proximity to one of the motel rooms, two of which had Pennsylvania license plates and one of which had a Florida license plate. On occasion during the past several years the motel had been the scene of underage drinking in one or another of its rooms. However, no noise or other indication of a party or unlawful activity of any type was perceived by the officer on this occasion. A records check revealed that the owners of the Pennsylvania vehicles, one of whom was the Defendant, were residents of Cumberland Counfy. It was als0 ' determined that Defendant and the person who had rented the room, a man named Zwan Stehman, had convictions for liquor law offenses. The officer, who was in uniform and armed, summoned assistance, which arrived in the form of three additional township police officers, who were also armed and in uniform. At about 11:00 p.m., the officer knocked on the door of the motel room. One of the occupants of the room looked out from behind a curtain, but the occupants did not surrender their privacy by opening the door. The officer proceeded to knock a second time. In response to this second entreaty, Defendant opened the door. From this point, evidence tending to support the prosecution was procured, in the form of observations, material items and inculpatory statements, by police, who were admitted into the room. Defendant has moved to suppress this evidence as having been obtained in violation of his Pennsylvania and federal constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, inter alia. 2 DISCUSSION The fourth amendment to the federal constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated .... "Section 8 of Article 1 of the Pennsylvania constitution provides that "[t]he people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures .... "Underlying these provisions is the concept of protection of one's "reasonable expectation of privacy" against "unreasonable governmental intrusion." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1873, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 898-99 (1968). It has been said that a guest in a motel room has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the room during the period of time it is rented. Commonwealth v. Ardestani, __ Pa. ., __, 736 A.2d 552, 556 (1999). A property right in premises is not a prerequisite to a reasonable expectation of privacy therein. Id. Interactions between citizens and police have been placed into three categories. The least intrusive of these is the "mere encounter (or request for information) which need not be supported by any level of suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop or to respond." Commonwealth v. Ellis, 541 Pa. 285, 293-94, 662 A.2d 1043, 1047 (1995). The second level, sometimes called an investigative detention, "must be supported by a reasonable suspicion; it subjects a suspect to a stop and a period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the 3 functional equivalent of an arrest." Id. at 294, 662 A.2d at 1047. Reasonable suspicion in this context is dependent upon the existence of "specific and articulable facts which, if taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant a belief that criminal activity is afoot." Commonwealth v. Myers, 728 A.2d 960, 962 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). Reasonable suspicion requires more than a "mere hunch'd or "policeman's intuition.''2 The third level of interaction consists of an "arrest or custodial detention [which] must be supported by probable cause." Commonwealth v. Ellis, 541 Pa. 285, 294, 662 A.2d 1043, 1047 (1995). In the present case, it appears to the court that police activity in the form of knocking on the door of a motel room by an officer who is armed and in uniform, assisted by three backup officers who are also armed and in uniform, at eleven o'clock at night, followed by further knocking when the occupants do not initially surrender their privacy, constitutes more than a mere encounter when they ultimately yield. It appears further that the activity was based more on a hunch than on specific and articulable facts which reasonably warranted a belief that ~ See Commonwealth v. Bowersox, 450 Pa. Super. 176, 182, 675 A.2d 718, 721 (1996). 2 See Commonwealth v. Lopez, 415 Pa. Super. 252, 262, 609 A.2d 177, 182 (1992). 4 criminal activity was afoot. For these reasons, Defendant's motion to suppress will be granted.3 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 8th day of November, 1999, upon consideration of Defendant's omnibus pretrial motion in the form of a motion to suppress, following a hearing, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is granted. BY THE COURT, s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Michael S. Ferguson, Esq. Assistant District Attorney James M. Bach, Esq. 352 South Sporting Hill Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Defendant .'rc 3 Because of this disposition of Defendant's omnibus pretrial motion, it is not necessary to examine other bases for suppression raised by Defendant in the motion.