Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0002324-2009 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : FRITZ EUSTACHE PLACIDE : CP-21-CR-2324-2009 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 Masland, J., November 10, 2010:-- Fritz Eustache Placide (Defendant) was convicted of three drug and firearms offenses after a non-jury trial presided over by the undersigned. Following sentencing, Defendant now appeals to the Superior Court. Restated briefly, Defendant raises two issues on appeal: (1) the court erred by failing to grant his suppression motion, and (2) the guilty verdicts are not supported by sufficient evidence. I. Facts On the afternoon of August 25, 2009, Trooper Adam Reed of the Pennsylvania State Police was monitoring traffic on Interstate 81. Notes of Testimony, May 26, 2010 (N.T.) at 13. He observed a vehicle speeding and following too closely and initiated a traffic stop. N.T. at 13. His initial investigation revealed the car was a rental vehicle registered in Florida and the person authorized to operate the vehicle per the rental agreement was not present. N.T. at 14-15. Trooper Reed proceeded to conduct separate roadside interviews with each of the passengers. When asked about the relationships of the passengers and their travel plans, the driver told the Trooper all occupants of the vehicle were brothers and sisters traveling from Atlanta to Reading to visit family. N.T. at 15. The driver further explained that after the visit, the passengers planned to fly back to the Atlanta area. N.T. at 16 In a subsequent interview, one of the other passengers provided contradictory CP-21-CR-2324-2009 responses regarding the relationship among the passengers. Specifically, he stated that he and the driver were boyfriend and girlfriend rather than brother and sister. N.T. at 17. The Trooper also determined one of the passengers had a prior criminal record. N.T. at 18. The Trooper then reengaged the driver and confronted her about the inconsistencies in the passengers' stories. N.T. at 19. He asked her, “[w]hy did you lie to me?” N.T. at 19. She admitted her deceit and said, “I lied because I was nervous and scared.” N.T. at 19. These irregularities coupled with the absence of the authorized driver under the rental agreement led Trooper Reed to contact a K-9 unit to conduct an exterior sniff search of the vehicle. N.T. at 21-22. During this search, the K-9 “hit” on the front passenger side area of the vehicle indicating the likely presence of contraband. N.T. at 22. The officers observed a duffel bag on the floor of the front, passenger-side compartment. N.T. at 22-23. After they removed the bag from the car and prior to its search, none of the passengers expressed ownership of the bag. N.T. at 23. The officers opened the bag and discovered several bags of marijuana, a loaded pistol and ammunition. N.T. at 23. Following this discovery, the officers took all passengers into custody. N.T. at 23. It was at this time that Defendant spontaneously admitted ownership of the contraband. N.T. at 23. Defendant was arrested and the other passengers were released. II. Discussion The court will address its denial of Defendant's motion to suppress in three stages: (1) the initial traffic stop; (2) the search of the vehicle in which Defendant was a passenger; and (3) the search of the duffel bag. Then, the court will address Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. -2- CP-21-CR-2324-2009 A. Motion to Suppress 1. Initial Traffic Stop Defendant challenges the probable cause supporting the initial traffic stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. He objects on the grounds that the vehicle was stopped for speeding, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to present competent evidence to establish the vehicle’s speed was measured by a properly certified and calibrated speedometer. Defendant's argument is misplaced and should be rejected. Defendant's argument conflates the standard of proof necessary for conviction of a criminal offense with the level of suspicion necessary to justify a valid traffic stop. The Motor Vehicle Code empowers a police officer to stop a vehicle when he has a reasonable suspicion that a violation of the Code is occurring or has occurred. 75 Pa.C.S. §6308(b). Here, Trooper Reed credibly testified that he observed the vehicle traveling ten miles over the speed limit and following another vehicle too closely. N.T. at 13. The Trooper's credible testimony 1 provided ample evidence to justify the initial traffic stop. 2. Vehicle Search The bulk of Defendant's suppression motion goes to his challenge of the search of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. He contends the warrantless search was illegal and all subsequently discovered evidence must be suppressed. The court disagrees. As a passenger in a rental vehicle where the authorized driver was not present, Defendant had no legitimate privacy expectation in the vehicle and his motion to suppress was properly denied. Defendant appeals his convictions of possessory offenses relating to firearms and marijuana. As such, he has automatic standing to pursue a motion to suppress that evidence. Commonwealth v. Powell, 994 A.2d 1096, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2010). Nonetheless, the court's 1 The court notes that this testimony establishes not only the Trooper's reasonable suspicion but probable cause to stop the vehicle in question. -3- CP-21-CR-2324-2009 analysis of Defendant's ability to challenge the vehicle search does not end here. Defendant also bears the burden of establishing that the challenged police conduct violated his own personal privacy interests. Id. at 1107. Defendant was a passenger in a rental car where the authorized driver was not present. Our Superior Court has concluded that an unauthorized driver of a rental car has no reasonable expectation of privacy in that vehicle. Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 120 (Pa. Super. 2005). Per force, a passenger in such a vehicle also cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy. In fact, absent circumstances indicating otherwise, “an ordinary passenger in an automobile does not by his mere presence have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the entire passenger compartment of that vehicle.” Powell, 994 A.2d at 1105. Thus, even if Defendant were a passenger in a vehicle operated by its legitimate owner, he would not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the passenger compartment of the vehicle. To conclude, the court holds a passenger in a rental vehicle, where the authorized driver of the vehicle is absent, has no reasonable expectation of privacy in that vehicle. For these reasons, the external sniff search conducted by the police K-9 unit and subsequent discovery of the duffel bag were proper. 3. Duffel Bag Search At the close of the suppression hearing, the court concluded Defendant had no legitimate personal privacy interest with respect to the duffel bag discovered during the vehicle search. Defendant disputes this determination. After the exterior K-9 sniff indicated the likelihood of contraband in the front, passenger-side of the vehicle, police removed a duffel bag from that part of the car. Notably, Defendant had been seated in the rear, driver's-side of the vehicle. When the officers -4- CP-21-CR-2324-2009 removed the bag from the vehicle, none of the passengers claimed ownership. N.T. at 23. As such, it was considered abandoned and the passengers relinquished any interest in the bag. Commonwealth v. Atkinson, 987 A.2d 743, 753 (Pa. Super. 2009). Defendant did not claim ownership of the bag's contents until after the bag had been searched and the contraband discovered. N.T. at 23. Thus, at the time of the search, Defendant had no personal privacy interest in the bag. 4. Conclusion – Suppression The court properly denied Defendant's suppression motion. The investigating police officers were justified at every stage of the investigation and search of the vehicle in which Defendant was a passenger. Trooper Reed properly conducted the initial traffic stop after observing violations of the Motor Vehicle Code. His preliminary investigation pursuant to the traffic stop revealed the vehicle was a rental car and the authorized operator of the vehicle was not present. Based on this discovery, the Trooper was free to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle because neither the unauthorized driver, nor the passengers, had a legitimate privacy interest in the vehicle. Thus, when his suspicions were raised by the passengers' inconsistent statements and other factors, he was justified in contacting the K-9 unit to conduct an external sniff search. Upon the discovery of the duffel bag and the indication that it likely contained contraband, the officers were justified in opening and searching the bag. Defendant did not indicate his ownership of the bag and had been seated on the opposite side of vehicle from where the bag was discovered. Thus, he had no privacy interest in the bag and cannot establish such an interest subsequent to the search by claiming ownership of the contraband discovered in the bag. For all these reasons, the court properly denied Defendant's suppression motion and that denial should be affirmed. -5- CP-21-CR-2324-2009 B. Sufficiency of Evidence Following Defendant's non-jury trial, the court found him guilty of three counts: (1) Persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms; (2) Firearms not to be carried without a license; and (3) Unlawful delivery, manufacture, possession with intent to deliver a schedule I controlled substance. Defendant now challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting these convictions. Restated for clarity, Defendant contends his admission of ownership of the contraband was obtained without a Miranda warning and that the evidence was insufficient to establish his intent to distribute the marijuana in light of the 2 small amount discovered. The court disagrees and submits that there was ample evidence for it to find Defendant guilty of all counts. 1. Admission of Ownership As previously recounted, after the officers discovered the marijuana, loaded pistol, and ammunition, Defendant spontaneously admitted ownership of the contraband. A suspect's unsolicited statement is admissible and Miranda warnings are unnecessary under those circumstances. Commonwealth v. King, 721 A.2d 763, 775 (Pa. 1998). Thus, Defendant's admission of ownership of the contraband was admissible and establishes the possession element of all of his convictions. 2. Possession with Intent to Deliver Defendant argues his possession of only 5.6 grams of marijuana is insufficient to establish his intent to deliver. The court disagrees. In a review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a possession with intent to deliver conviction, “all facts and circumstances surrounding the possession are relevant, and the Commonwealth may establish the essential elements of the crime wholly by 2 Defendant does not dispute that he had no license to carry a firearm and that he is a person not to possess a firearm due to a previous aggravated assault conviction. -6- CP-21-CR-2324-2009 circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v. Bricker, 882 A.2d 1008, 1015 (Pa. Super. 2005). “Factors to consider in determining whether the drugs were possessed with the intent to deliver include the particular method of packaging, the form of the drug, and the behavior of the defendant.” Id. Here, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Trooper James Borza to establish Defendant possessed the marijuana with the intent to deliver. At the non-jury trial, the court qualified Trooper Borza as an expert in the selling and packaging of narcotics. N.T. at 71. In this capacity, Trooper Borza testified to several indicia of the intent to deliver in the nature of Defendant's possession of the marijuana. First, he noted that the Defendant had packaged the marijuana in eight individual baggies. N.T. at 73. He also noted there was no drug paraphernalia discovered in the vehicle. N.T. at 74. He explained that normally, when someone has marijuana for personal use, they keep it on their person and have some kind of device with which to smoke the marijuana. N.T. at 75. Finally, and most importantly; Trooper Borza testified that the bags of marijuana were stored in a bag next to a loaded pistol and ammunition. N.T. at 76. He explained that drug dealers are frequently armed due to the inherent danger of the drug world. N.T. 76. In light of all of these factors, Trooper Borza testified persuasively that Defendant possessed the bags of marijuana with the intent to distribute them. Accordingly, Defendant's conviction is supported by sufficient evidence. Bricker, 882 A.2d at 1015-16. III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Superior Court should affirm this court's denial of -7- CP-21-CR-2324-2009 Defendant's suppression motion and subsequent conviction of Defendant in all respects. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Joshua Yohe, Esquire For the Commonwealth John M. Shugars, Esquire For Defendant :saa -8-