Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0940-2004COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, :PENNSYLVANIA : CP-21-CR-940-2004 AARON JAMES BRUNO :CHARGE(S): (1) ESCAPE (2) PURCHASE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION OR TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR OR MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES (3) MINOR PROHIBITED FROM OPERATING WITH ANY ALCOHOL IN SYSTEM (4) UNLAWFUL POSSESSION-SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA (5) UNLAWFUL POSSESSION-DRUG PARAPHERNALIA IN RE: OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS Before HOFFER, P. J. OPINION This matter is before the Court on Defendant Bruno's Pretrial Omnibus Motion to Suppress. In his motion, the Defendant contends that certain evidence should be suppressed because: (1) the police officer's investigative detention of Defendant was not supported by reasonable suspicion; and (2) there was insufficient probable cause to justify the issuance of two search warrants of Defendant's vehicle. On August 23, 2004, the Court conducted a hearing on this matter. Each party also filed a supporting brief. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, Defendant's Motion to Suppress will be DENIED. STATEMENT OF FACTS At approximately 1:30 a.m. on March 7, 2004, a house alarm sounded from 712 Sunhaven Circle, located in the Peachtree Housing Development of Upper Allen Township, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. A neighbor reported a burglar alarm sounding to the Upper Allen Township Police Department and also reported seeing people fleeing from the residence. The Police Department dispatched Sergeant Andrew Parsons to investigate the reported burglar alarm. Sergeant Parsons was familiar with Peachtree Housing Development because he patrolled the area several times over his 10-year career with the Upper Allen Township Police Department. Within a few minutes of the dispatch, Sergeant Parsons arrived at the Peachtree Housing Development in an unmarked patrol vehicle. As he neared St. Paul's Church from Williams Grove Road, Sergeant Parsons observed the Defendant's vehicle quickly exiting the church's parking lot via the church driveway intersecting with Williams Grove Road. From his experience patrolling the Peachtree Development, Sergeant Parsons knew that St. Paul's Church is easily accessible by foot from the Development's residences. Specifically, the residence from which the alarm was reported sat approximately 800-1,000 feet from the church lot. Furthermore, the church posted signs prohibiting vehicle presence in its parking lot except in connection with attendance at official church functions. 2 As Sergeant Parsons's police car approached the Defendant's vehicle, the patrol car's headlights shone upon the Defendant's vehicle. Sergeant Parsons observed that the four occupants of the vehicle appeared to be under the age of 21-years old. Upper Allen Township has imposed a curfew for individuals under the age of 21-years old.~ Sergeant Parsons pulled his patrol vehicle in front of Defendant's vehicle to stop it from entering Williams Grove Road from the church lot. Sergeant Parsons asked the Defendant to exit his vehicle. The officer detected the odor of alcohol on Defendant's breath and noticed that Defendant's eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Upon examination of Defendant's driver's license, Sergeant Parsons determined that the Defendant was 20-years old. Sergeant Parsons also detected alcohol on the breath of the three female occupants of Defendant's vehicle. Two of the female occupants were 16-years old and one female occupant was 19-years old. While Sergeant Parsons checked the validity of Defendant's driver's license and vehicle registration, he learned from the police department that the alarm sounding at 712 Sunhaven Circle was a fire alarm. Sergeant Parsons also learned that the residence hosted an underage drinking party and the occupants of Defendant's vehicle had attended that party. Around this time, ~ See Sections 1-7 of Chapter 116 of the Code of Upper Allen Township. A "minor" is defined as "[a]ny person under the age of eighteen (18) years." § 116-1. According to the curfew ordinance, no minor shall be or remain in or upon any public place or establishment between 12:00 a.m.-6:00 a.m. § 116-2. This curfew is subject to the following exceptions: (a) when the minor is accompanied by a parent, guardian or other person having legal custody or if the minor is accompanied by a "responsible person over the age of twenty-one (21) years old'; (b) when the minor is engaged in lawful employment or is en route to such employment. § 116-2 (emphasis added). Defendant fled the scene. The police subsequently impounded Defendant's vehicle. On March 9, 2004, Sergeant Parsons obtained a search warrant for alcoholic beverages and containers within Defendant's vehicle. Based on upon the search for alcoholic beverages/containers, Sergeant Parsons opened a black backpack and green backpack located in the rear seat of Defendant's vehicle. Sergeant Parsons observed materials in the backpacks that could be utilized as drug paraphernalia.2 At this point, Sergeant Parsons obtained a second search warrant to locate drug paraphernalia used in the illegal distribution and sale of drugs. The evidence seized pursuant to the two search warrants is being used to support the pending charges against the Defendant. DISCUSSION I. Sergeant Parsons's Investigative Detention Was Supported by Reasonable Suspicion of Unlawful Conduct on the Part of the Detainee. There are three levels of interaction between citizens and police. A "mere encounter" (or a request for information) need not be supported by any degree of suspicion and carries no official compulsion for the citizen to stop or respond. Commonwealth v. Ellis, 541 Pa. 285, 294-95 (1995). An "investigative detention" must be supported by "reasonable suspicion" and : The backpack contained opened plastic sandwich bags, a plastic sealed container containing plastic baggies, another empty plastic sealed container, and a small digital scale. The green backpack contained a small plastic baggie holding a "green vegetable material." See Affidavit of Probable Cause (Commonwealth Exhibit #3 from August 23, 2004 hearing). 4 subjects a suspect citizen to a period of detention but does not involve coercive conditions that give rise to the equivalent of an arrest. Finally, an "arrest" must be based upon probable cause. Id~ at 295. At issue in the instant action is whether Sergeant Parsons's investigative detention of Defendant was supported by the requisite reasonable suspicion. In order to effectuate a valid investigatory stop, a police officer must be able to "articulate specific observations which, in conjunction with reasonable inferences derived from those observations, led him reasonably to conclude, in light of his experience, that criminal activity was afoot and that the person he stopped was involved in that activity." Commonwealth v. Reppert, 814 A.2d 1196, 1204 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). The determination of whether the police officer had reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances. Commonwealth v. Roqers, 849 A.2d 1185, 1189 (Pa. 2004). Further, the totality of the circumstances inquiry is not limited only to those facts that clearly indicate criminal conduct. Rather, "even a combination of innocent facts, when taken together, may warrant further investigation by the police officer." Id. Due weight must be given to the reasonable inferences drawn by the police officer because of his training and experience. Id. In the case at bar, several factors gave rise to Sergeant Parsons's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Upper Allen Township Police Department dispatched Sergeant Parsons at an early morning hour to investigate an alarm sounding from a residence. The complainant neighbor who reported the alarm also reported people fleeing from the residence. As Sergeant Parsons neared the scene, he observed a vehicle quickly leaving an otherwise empty church parking lot located in close proximity to the alarm- sounding residence. Additionally, Sergeant Parsons determined that the four occupants of the vehicle appeared to be under the age of 21-years old and therefore in possible violation of the Township's curfew ordinance. Based on the foregoing circumstances, the investigatory stop of Defendant's vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion. Sergeant Parsons made "specific observations which, in conjunction with reasonable inferences derived from those observations, led him reasonably to conclude, in light of his experience, that criminal activity was afoot and that the person he stopped was involved in that activity." See Ellis, 541 Pa. at 294-95 (police officer's investigatory stop of defendant was supported by reasonable suspicion when officer was dispatched to investigate a burglary alarm at 2:00 a.m., the defendant's vehicle was the only vehicle on the roadway near the burglary scene at that hour, the car was in an area a vehicle would have been if it was leaving the scene of the burglary, and the car matched the description of a car seen at the site of the burglary alarm); Commonwealth v. Melynyczenko, 234 Pa. Super. 317, 320 (1975) (police officer's investigatory stop of defendant was supported by reasonable suspicion when defendant was located near the scene of a burglary recently committed, it was an early hour of the morning and defendant was the only person on the street). II. The Two Search Warrants Issued to Permit the Search of Defendant's Vehicle were Supported by Sufficient Probable Cause. In determining the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, the courts of the Commonwealth utilize a "totality of the circumstances" test. Commonwealth v. Sinqleton, 412 Pa. Super. 550,552 (1991). A magistrate's determination that probable cause existed must be given deference. Commonwealth v. Corleto, 328 Pa. Super. 522,528 (1984). A magistrate need not find a prima facie showing of criminal activity, but rather the probability of criminal activity. Further, the magistrate's inquiry is restricted to the four corners of the affidavit and the affidavit is to be interpreted in a common-sense and realistic fashion. Commonwealth v. Gray, 322 Pa. Super. 37, 46 (1983). In sum, the magistrate's duty is "to make a practical, common- sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him.., there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Commonwealth v. Miller, 334 Pa. Super. 374, 382 (1984) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)). Based on the foregoing principles, the two search warrants issued in the present action were supported by sufficient probable cause. In the application for the first search warrant, Sergeant Parsons set forth the following observations in the "Affidavit of Probable Cause": Sergeant Parsons stopped the vehicle in connection with an investigation into a burglar alarm; he observed that the occupants of the vehicle appeared to be under the age of 21-years old; Sergeant Parsons detected the odor of alcohol on the Defendant/driver's breath; he observed the Defendant/driver's eyes were bloodshot and glassy; the Defendant fled the scene on foot; Sergeant Parsons spoke to the three underage female passengers in the car and determined each of them had been consuming alcoholic beverages. In light of Sergeant Parsons's training and experience, it was reasonable for him to conclude that the underage occupants of the vehicle had recently been consuming alcohol and may have been transporting alcoholic beverages and containers of alcohol in the vehicle. The second search warrant issued was also supported by sufficient probable cause. In the course of conducting a search of Defendant's vehicle for alcoholic beverages and containers, Sergeant Parsons discovered a box of opened plastic sandwich bags, a plastic sealed container containing plastic baggies, another empty plastic sealed container, a small digital scale and a small plastic baggie which contained a green vegetable material. See footnote 2. Based on Sergeant Parsons's training and knowledge of items typically used in illegal drug sale and distribution, he set forth his observations in the "Affidavit of Probable Cause." Accordingly, the magistrate had sufficient probable cause to issue the search warrant. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, :PENNSYLVANIA : CP-21-CR-940-2004 AARON JAMES BRUNO :CHARGE(S): (1) ESCAPE (2) PURCHASE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION OR TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR OR MALT OR BREWED BEVERAGES (3) MINOR PROHIBITED FROM OPERATING WITH ANY ALCOHOL IN SYSTEM (4) UNLAWFUL POSSESSION-SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA (5) UNLAWFUL POSSESSION-DRUG PARAPHERNALIA IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS Before HOFFER, P. J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1st day of November, 2004, upon consideration of Defendant's Omnibus Pre-trial Motion to Suppress and briefs submitted by both parties, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is DENIED. By the Court, George E. Hoffer, P.J. R. Mark Thomas, Esquire 101 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Daniel Sodus, Esquire Senior Assistant District Attorney