Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-1466 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH V. KWASI HUSANI JOHNSON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2001-1466 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Guido, J., October ,2002 On July 30, 2002, after a non-jury trial before the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley, the defendant was convicted of possessing a schedule I controlled substance. He waived a presentence report and was immediately sentenced to undergo imprisonment in the Cumberland County Prison from "time served to six months.''~ He was paroled that same day. The instant appeal followed. The only issue raised on appeal is the propriety of our refusal to grant defendant's omnibus pretrial motion to suppress evidence.2 We will address our reasons for denying that motion in the opinion that follows. An evidentiary hearing on defendant's motion to suppress evidence was held before us on April 9, 2002. The factual basis for our decision was established by the testimony of Pennsylvania State Police Brian Overcash, which we found to be credible. On April 8, 2000, he stopped a vehicle for speeding along the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Cumberland County. The vehicle was occupied by three men, the driver and two passengers.3 Immediately upon stopping, the driver sprung from the vehicle and began ~ Transcript of Proceedings, July 30, 2002, p. 6. : See defendant's "Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. ~ There was one passenger in the front seat and one in the back seat. The one in the back seat is the defendant in this case. NO. 2001-1466 CRIMINAL TERM charging toward the patrol car. The trooper, understandably concerned for his safety, ordered him to stop and to place his hands on the hood of the patrol vehicle. The driver informed the trooper that he had to urinate. Before allowing him to go into the woods to resolve his problem, the trooper patted him down for weapons. During the search he detected a large object in one of the driver's pockets. As it turned out, the large object was a wad of money.4 After the defendant finished in the woods, the trooper directed him to get back into his car so that the traffic stop could proceed. The trooper then approached the vehicle from the passenger side to get the information he needed to prepare a citation for speeding. As he looked into the vehicle, he saw Philly blunt cigar wrappers and tobacco spread throughout the interior.5 He obtained the information he needed and returned to his patrol car to prepare the citation. The trooper returned to the vehicle and asked the driver to get out in order to receive the citation. The trooper issued the citation, returned the documents and advised the driver that he was free to leave. However, the trooper's actions belied his words. His suspicions having been aroused by the large sum of money in defendant's pocket, as well as the Philly blunt wrappers strewn throughout the vehicle, he immediately began to question the driver. The responses to his questions aroused the trooper's suspicions even more. The driver became visibly nervous when asked if there was anything illegal in his car. 4 The driver told the trooper that the wad contained $2300. s Based upon the trooper's training and experience, he was aware that Philly blunt wrappers are commonly used to smoke marijuana. 6 His lips began to shake, he was talking extremely fast and he was moving around a lot. NO. 2001-1466 CRIMINAL TERM narcotics. marijuana. defendant. Furthermore, the explanation as to where they had been and where they were going made no sense. The trooper then approached the vehicle to ask the passengers about the money. From his position in the back seat, the defendant admitted that a portion of the money in the wad belonged to him. While questioning the defendant, the trooper noticed a glass vial in plain view on the driver's seat. It was the type of vial commonly used to hold It contained a green vegetable matter which the trooper believed to be The trooper seized the vial and arrested all three occupants, including the On appeal the defendant argues that the detention of the driver after the conclusion of the traffic stop was illegal.8 He also contends that his arrest was not supported by probable cause.9 However, based upon the above facts, we concluded that both the investigative detention and subsequent arrest were proper. In the instant case the trooper subjected the occupants of the vehicle to two separate investigative detentions. The first was for the issuance of the traffic citation which the defendant concedes, as he must, was entirely proper. However, the traffic stop clearly ended when the citation was issued, the documents were returned and the driver was told that he could leave. See Commonwealth v. Freeman, 563 Pa. 82, 757 A.2d 903 (2000). The subsequent questioning of the driver was a separate and distinct detention which, in order to be valid, must have been supported by "an articulable, reasonable 7 The driver had told the trooper that the money belonged to all three occupants. Based upon the large amount of cash, the presence of the Philly blunts, the driver's demeanor, and his inconsistent answers, the trooper reasonably suspected that narcotics may be present in the car. 8 See "Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal". 9 See "Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal". NO. 2001-1466 CRIMINAL TERM suspicion that (the occupants of the vehicle) may have been engaged in criminal activity independent of that supporting" the initial traffic stop. Freeman, 757 A.2d at 908. In the instant case, we were satisfied that the trooper had both an articulable and reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may have been afoot. The presence of the Philly blunt wrappers in the vehicle coupled with the large amount of cash being carried by the driver were sufficient to justify the second investigative detention. We also concluded that the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant at the time he was taken into custody. "Probable cause to arrest depends on whether, at the moment the arrest is made, the totality of the circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge regarding a particular situation would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the accused had committed or was committing an offense." Commonwealth v. Cox, 546 Pa. 515, 532 686 A.2d 1279, 1287 (1996). Atthe time the defendant was taken into custody, the officer knew the following: · He was the joint owner of a large sum of cash being carried by the driver. · He was an occupant of a vehicle in which Philly blunt wrappers were strewn throughout. · The driver was visibly nervous when asked if there was anything illegal in the car. · He gave inconsistent statements regarding their journey. · A glass vial containing suspected marijuana was in plain view on the driver's seat. 10 Under the totality of the circumstances, the trooper had probable cause to believe that all of the occupants of the vehicle were in possession, actual or constructive, of a controlled substance. Therefore, the arrest was lawful. 10 While it tums out that the glass vial contained a substance laced with PCP rather than marijuana, that is immaterial to our analysis. NO. 2001-1466 CRIMINAL TERM DATE Edward E. Guido, J. Daniel J. Sodus, Esquire For the Commonwealth Jessica B. Rhoades, Esquire For the Defendant :sld