Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-879 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH MARION MAGDALEN EDEN IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 03-0879 CRIMINAL TERM MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BEFORE BAYLEY, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., August 7, 2003:-- Defendant, Marion Magdalen Eden, is charged with counts of unlawful possession of a schedule I controlled substance,1 and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia? She filed a motion to suppress evidence upon which a hearing was conducted on July 29, 2003. We find the following facts. Officer Lane Pryor of the Camp Hill Borough Police was on patrol on July 29, 2002. He saw Michael Sabella operating a vehicle in which defendant, Marion Magdalen Eden, was a passenger. He knew them both. Officer Pryor made a computer check on Sabella which turned up an active warrant in Harrisburg, Dauphin County. He stopped the vehicle for the purpose of arresting Sabella on the warrant. Defendant was the owner of the vehicle. 1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16). 2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32). 03-0879 CRIMINAL TERM Officer Pryor saw that Sabella had needle marks on his arm. He knew that Sabella and defendant had been heroin users, and that they both had previously been cooperative in drug investigations. Intending to take Sabella into custody on the warrant, he asked defendant to step out of the vehicle because (1) he wanted to see if she had a valid driver's license to take the vehicle, and (2) knowing her and Sabella's drug history he wanted to ask her where they were going and what they were doing. While Sabella remained in the vehicle, Officer Pryor went to the back of the vehicle with defendant where he saw that she had a black fanny pack in her hand. He immediately asked her what was inside the pack. She said "nothing." He asked her if she had a starter [heroin] kit with her. She opened up a compartment in the pack and told him to look inside. There was nothing amiss. She opened up a second compartment and told him to look inside. There was nothing amiss. She "cracked open" a third compartment and he saw an open pocket knife and a clear plastic baggie underneath. She pushed the knife inside the compartment. He asked her about the knife and she pulled it out. He grabbed the knife and she dropped the pack. He then saw a heroin starter kit inside. He seized the pack and the items inside and arrested her on the within charges? 3 Ironically, the officer then made a radio check to Harrisburg authorities and was told not to take Sabella into custody on the warrant, which was for fine and costs, but tell him he had five days to pay. -2- 03-0879 CRIMINAL TERM DISCUSSION Defendant maintains that all items seized by Officer Pryor from inside her fanny pack must be suppressed. In Commonwealth v. By, 812 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2002), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, analyzing the decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884 (Pa. 2000), and Commonwealth v. Freeman, 757 A.2d 903 (Pa. 2000), stated: Where the purpose of an initial, valid traffic stop has ended and a reasonable person would have believed that he was free to leave, the law characterizes a subsequent round of questioning by the officer as a mere encounter. See Strickler, 757 A.2d at 898. Since the citizen is free to leave, he is not detained, and the police are free to ask questions appropriate to a mere encounter, including a request for permission to search the vehicle. However, where the purpose of an initial traffic stop has ended and a reasonable person would not have believed that he was free to leave, the law characterizes a subsequent round of questioning by the police as an investigative detention or arrest. See Freeman, 757 A.2d at 907. In the absence of either reasonable suspicion to support the investigative detention or probable cause to support the arrest, the citizen is considered unlawfully detained, Where a consensual search has been preceded by an unlawful detention, the exclusionary rule requires suppression of the evidence obtained absent a demonstration by the commonwealth both of a sufficient break in the causal chain between the illegality and the seizure of evidence. This assures of the search's voluntariness and that the search is not an exploitation of the prior unlawful detention. See Strickler, 757 A.2d at 889 (citation omitted). (Emphasis added.) In the case sub judice, the stop of the vehicle was lawful based on Officer Pryor's knowledge that there was an outstanding warrant for Sabella. As soon as the stop was made, its purpose, which was to detain Sabella on the warrant, was accomplished. Although the officer saw needle marks on Sabella's arm and knew that -3- 03-0879 CRIMINAL TERM he and defendant had been heroin users, that did not give him articulable, reasonable suspicion that defendant may at that point have been engaged in criminal activity sufficient to warrant her detention for investigation. Where there has been a legitimate stop an officer can have any passengers, as well as the driver, get out of the vehicle. Commonwealth v. Freeman, supra. Even though Officer Pryor did not have any information that defendant, who owned the vehicle, did not have a driver's license, he could legitimately ask to see a license before allowing her to drive the vehicle from the scene. He did not, however, ask to see her license. After having her get out of the vehicle he immediately asked her what was in the fanny pack. A reasonable person would not have felt free to leave at that point. Thus, defendant was seized. When she said "nothing," in response to the first question, Officer Pryor asked her if she had a starter kit with her. That prompted her to open the pack which resulted in the discovery of contraband inside. Although defendant voluntarily opened the pack that action was a result of the exploitation of her unlawful detention without there being a sufficient break in the causal chain between the illegality and the seizure of the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Dales, 820 A.2d 807 (Pa. Super. 2003). Accordingly, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of August, 2003, the motion of defendant to suppress all evidence obtained from inside her fanny pack, IS GRANTED. The evidence, IS SUPPRESSED. -4- 03-0879 CRIMINAL TERM By the Court, Matthew Smith, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Aria Waller, Esquire For Defendant :sal Edgar B. Bayley, J. -5- COMMONWEALTH MARION MAGDALEN EDEN IN RE: AND NOW, this IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 03-0879 CRIMINAL TERM MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BEFORE BAYLEY, J. ORDER OF COURT day of August, 2003, the motion of defendant to suppress all evidence obtained from inside her fanny pack, IS GRANTED. The evidence, IS SUPPRESSED. By the Court, Matthew Smith, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Aria Waller, Esquire For Defendant :sal Edgar B. Bayley, J.