Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1561-2005 COMMONWEAL TH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ANGELA HYKES CP-21-CR-1561-2005 IN RE: MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BEFORE BAYLEY. J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., January 6, 2006:-- Defendant, Angela Hykes, is charged with counts of possession of a small amount of marijuana,1 and possession of drug paraphernal ia. 2 She fi led a motion to suppress evidence upon which a hearing was conducted on October 25, 2005. We find the following facts. On April 19, 2005, based on a citizen's telephone call to the police at 11: 19 p.m., Patrolman Brian Curtis of the Mechanicsburg Borough Police Department was dispatched to an apartment in the Borough for a "possible domestic dispute." Curtis had previously been dispatched to the same apartment which was occupied by Angela Hykes and Brandon Schroll. On that occasion, Schroll was arrested after it was determined that he had swung a samurai sword at Hykes. On April 19, Patrolman Curtis and Police Chief David Spotts arrived at the apartment which was on a third floor. While at ground level they heard a male and female yelling from inside the 1 35 P.S. S 780-113(a)(31). CP-21-CR-1561-2005 apartment. They walked up a stairwell and announced that they were the police. Brandon Schroll opened the door to the apartment. He then backed away leaving the door open. The officers walked into the apartment. They told Schroll that they had been dispatched for a domestic dispute. Schroll said there was no problem. He then yelled that, "they're here and think we are fighting." Angela Hykes put her head outside a door in a hallway. Patrolman Curtis walked toward her and asked her if there was a problem. She said "no," and asked if she could get dressed. The officer said yes, and she closed the door. Patrolman Curtis waited because he wanted to see how she looked and talk to her outside of the presence of Schroll. As he was standing in the hall, he looked into another bedroom and saw a pipe on top of a table which he recognized as a smoking device for marijuana. He went into the room, turned on a light, and seized the pipe. He then saw a bag of marijuana under the table which he also seized. The Chief and Schroll came into the bedroom. Schroll said that the pipe was his. After being administered Miranda warnings, Schroll showed the officers more pipes in a chest. Hykes walked into the room, and Patrolman Curtis asked her if the pipes were hers. She responded with incriminating statements. Claiming that the warrantless entry into the apartment was illegal, Hykes seeks to suppress all evidence obtained by the police after the entry. The issues are: (1) Was the police entry into the apartment legal based on consent? (2) If not, did the police otherwise legally enter the apartment, and was 235 P.S. S 780-113(a)(32). -2- CP-21-CR-1561-2005 Patrolman Curtis legally in the hall when he saw a pipe on top of a table which he recognized as a smoking device for marijuana? (3) If so, did Patrolman Curtis legally enter the bedroom and seize the pipe and a bag of marijuana under the table? (4) Are the incriminating statements of Hykes in response to the question of Patrolman Curtis asking her if the pipes were hers, admissible? As to the first issue, the Commonwealth concedes that Patrolman Curtis and Chief Spotts did not have the consent of Brandon Schroll or Angela Hykes to enter the apartment. As to the second issue, in Commonwealth v. Richter, 791 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2002), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, en banc, stated: Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. The expectation of privacy protected against the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions has been held to be greatest in one's home. See Commonwealth v. Gutierrez, 750 A.2d 906 (Pa.Super.2000). A warrantless search of a residence is per se unreasonable unless justified by a specific exception to the warrant requirement. Id. The exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement recognizes that some situations present a compelling need for instant arrest, and that delay to seek a warrant will endanger life, limb or overriding law enforcement interests. In these cases, our strong preference for use of a warrant must give way to an urgent need for immediate action. In determining whether exigent circumstances exist, a number of factors are to be considered. Among the factors to be considered are: (1) the gravity of the offense, (2) whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed, (3) whether there is above and beyond a clear showing of probable cause, (4) whether there is a strong reason to believe that the suspect is within the premises to be searched, (5) whether there is a likelihood that the -3- CP-21-CR-1561-2005 suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended, (6) whether the entry was peaceable, and (7) the time of the entry, i.e., whether it was made at night. These factors are to be balanced against one another in determining whether the warrantless intrusion was justified. Other factors may also be taken into account, such as whether there is hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, a likelihood that evidence will be destroyed if police take the time to obtain a warrant, or a danger to police or other persons inside or outside the dwelling. Commonwealth v. Santiago, 736 A.2d 624, 631-632 (Pa.Super.1999) (quotations omitted). The facts in Richter were: At approximately 9:20 p.m. on May 19, 2000, Police Officer Christopher J. Forbes, Police Officer Thomas, and Sergeant J.R. Landis were on-duty in Buckingham Township when they received a 911 call indicating that a domestic dispute was in progress and that a female was holding a male in a residence at gunpoint. The trio proceeded to the address given, 1939 Route 413 in Buckingham, and approached the door. Without knocking and announcing his identity, Sergeant Landis opened the door, which was unlocked, and Arthur Nicholas Gosin was found standing in the kitchen. Sergeant Landis ordered Gosin to remain standing, and Officers Forbes and Thomas proceeded into the residence. Officer Forbes patted down Gosin for weapons, and the remaining officers proceeded to the bedroom where Appellee Richter was located. Sergeant Landis asked Appellee Richter what had happened, and she indicated that Gosin assaulted her. Sergeant Landis went back to the front of the residence to talk to Gosin and discovered a marijuana roach on a coffee table. Gosin was arrested in relation to the assault, and he was read his Miranda warnings. Sergeant Landis requested consent to search the residence, and Gosin consented to the search. Sergeant Landis searched the premises and found drug paraphernalia, including a ceramic pipe and a bong, and a baggie of marijuana in the dresser and entertainment center. Appellee Richter was arrested, charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, and filed a pre-trial motion seeking to suppress, inter alia, the physical evidence seized by the police. (Footnote omitted. ) -4- CP-21-CR-1561-2005 Richter filed a motion seeking to suppress evidence obtained by the police. She claimed that the entry into her residence was without a warrant, probable cause, consent, or exigent circumstances. The trial court suppressed the evidence. On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed, concluding: . . . the entry by police into the subject premises was proper. First, the crime at issue was one of violence. That is, the police were investigating a domestic dispute where one person was reportedly holding another as a hostage at gunpoint. Second, the police reasonably believed that someone inside the house was armed. This conclusion is based on the fact that the police received a 911 call indicating that a gun was being used. Third, there was sufficient probable cause indicating that a violent domestic dispute, involving someone being held at gunpoint, was in progress. For example, the caller identified the address, people, and activity in detail, and, merely because there was no activity outside the house upon the police officers' arrival, it does not necessarily follow that no probable cause existed. Fourth, there was a strong reason to believe that an armed suspect was within the premises entered. The 911 call at issue specifically provided the police with the address where the domestic dispute was occurring, and that someone was being held at gunpoint. Fifth, there was a likelihood that the suspect would escape if not swiftly apprehended. It was reasonable for the police to believe that a person who held another at gunpoint would flee from the scene or hold the victim as a hostage. Sixth, the entry by the police was peaceable. Sergeant Landis testified that he opened the unlocked front door and entered the premises with no confrontation by the occupants. Moreover, Sergeant Landis and Police Officer Forbes indicated that there were no confrontations while they searched the premises. "The fact that [the] entry was not forcible aids in showing the reasonableness of police attitude and conduct." [Commonwealth v. Santiago, 736 A.2d 624,632 (Pa. Super. 1999)] (quotation and quotations marks omitted). Seventh, the time of the entry was made during the early evening hours, at 9:20 p.m. Although it was presumably dark when the entry was made, the police responded immediately to the call and, the fact it was dark, "underscores the delay (and perhaps the impracticability of) obtaining a warrant, and hence serve to justify proceeding without one." Id. (quotation and quotation marks omitted). -5- CP-21-CR-1561-2005 With regard to the other factors which may also be taken into account, we conclude that there was a great danger to police and other persons due to Appellee Richter's presence within the dwelling. For example, the police received a report that Appellee Richter was holding Gosin at gunpoint. If the police were required to wait for a warrant in order to enter the residence, the possibility of a "stand off" or an armed suspect escaping into the neighborhood was a threat. Here, the domestic dispute involving the use of weapons necessitates a finding of exigent circumstances. As such, based on all of the aforementioned, we conclude that exigent circumstances existed permitting the police to entry 1939 Route 413 in Buckingham. In contrast to the facts in Richter, in the case sub judice: (1) The report by the third party was for a "possible domestic dispute," not a domestic dispute where one person was holding another as a hostage at gunpoint. (2) When the officers arrived at the apartment of defendant and Schroll, they heard a male and female yelling inside the apartment. There was nothing indicating that physical violence was occurring. (3) When Brandon Schroll opened the door to the apartment following an announcement by the police, there was nothing to indicate that a weapon was present. This is in contrast to the prior incident between Schroll and Hykes involving a samurai sword. (4) There was no apparent danger to the female who was in the apartment, or to the police. (5) There was no probable cause to believe that any crime had been or was being committed. -6- CP-21-CR-1561-2005 After Schroll called to the defendant, and without waiting for her to answer or appear, or otherwise seek consent for an entry, the officers immediately entered the apartment. When defendant put her head outside a doorway, Patrolman Curtis further intruded into the hall of the apartment. Understanding his concern in not wanting to leave the area until he determined that defendant was alright, the warrantless entry into the apartment was illegal in that it was not supported by exigent circumstances. As defendant says in her brief, "Does the Commonwealth believe that all yelling between couples gives rise to the right to enter a home, at night, without a warrant, and as here, without probable cause." It does noe This resolution makes it unnecessary to discuss issues three and four. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _ day of January, 2006, the motion of defendant to suppress all evidence obtained by the police following the entry into her apartment, IS GRANTED. By the Court, 3 We do not have to determine if the officers could have entered the apartment under exigent circumstances if, using reasonable efforts to see and talk to defendant, she had not appeared. -7- CP-21-CR-1561-2005 Jaime Keating, Esquire For the Commonwealth Charles Mackin, Esquire F or Defendant -8- Edgar B. Bayley, J. :sal COMMONWEAL TH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ANGELA HYKES CP-21-CR-1561-2005 IN RE: MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BEFORE BAYLEY. J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _ day of January, 2006, the motion of defendant to suppress all evidence obtained by the police following the entry into her apartment, IS GRANTED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Jaime Keating, Esquire For the Commonwealth Charles Mackin, Esquire F or Defendant :sal