Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-1998 CRIMINALCOMMONWEALTH JORDAN D. GROOME IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 01-1998 CRIMINAL TERM MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BEFORE BAYLEY, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., January 3, 2002:-- Defendant, Jordan D. Groome, is charged with counts of unlawful possession of a small amount of marijuana,1 and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia? Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence upon which a hearing was conducted on December 18, 2001. THE FACTS A little after 3:00 a.m., on August 5, 2001, Officer Douglas Hockenberry, of the Camp Hill Police Department, was conducting a traffic stop in the area of North 31st Street and Logan Street in the Borough of Camp Hill. Officer Hockenberry heard a party nearby, and saw what looked like teenagers and persons in their early twenties with beer. Several people were running from the area, and there were several beer cans on the street. Officer Hockenberry radioed Officer Lane Pryor of the Camp Hill 1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(31). 2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32). 01-1998 CRIMINAL TERM Police, who was in a patrol car, and told him what he had seen. At 3:13 a.m., Officer Pryor saw two males walking westbound on Market Street between 32® and 33r~ Street in the Borough of Camp Hill. That is approximately one block and a half from where Officer Hockenberry had described the beer party. The males appeared to be in their late teens or early twenties. Officer Pryor pulled his patrol car alongside the two males and said, "Hey you guys - you got a minute - can I speak with you." They said, "sure." Officer Pryor got out of his car. He testified that he took this action because of what Officer Hockenberry had just told him via radio. He wanted to find out if the two males had come from the party. Officer Pryor got out of his car and asked each of the males for identification. Defendant, Jordan Groome, provided identification. Scott Greenfield told the officer where he lived, his phone number, and his date of birth. Both men were age 21. Officer Pryor told them that he knew that some people had just run away from a beer party at 31st and Logan Street. They said they had been on South 32® Street [the opposite direction], and were walking toward the A-Plus convenience store. That store is on the east side of 32® Street at Market Street. Officer Hockenberry arrived in a patrol car. Officer Pryor told defendant and Greenfield that he would be right back. He got into his patrol car and ran a radio check for warrants on both of them. He learned that defendant had been previously arrested in Harrisburg for a drug violation. From inside the patrol car, Officer Pryor said, "Hey Jordan - you would not be holding -2- 01-1998 CRIMINAL TERM any marijuana would you." 3 Defendant immediately took a smoking pipe and some marijuana out of his pocket and handed it to Officer Hockenberry. Defendant was then arrested. As he was being taken to a booking center, Officer Pryor asked him why he had produced the smoking pipe and marijuana. Defendant said, "Because you were probably going to search me anyway." THE LAW In Commonwealth v. Ellis, 662 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 1995), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated: [t]hat Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has led to the development of three categories of interactions between citizens and the police. The first of these is a 'mere encounter' (or request for information) which need not be supported by any level of suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop or to respond. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). The second, an 'investigative detention' must be supported by a reasonable suspicion; it subjects a suspect to a stop and a period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of an arrest. See Berkemerv. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Finally, an arrest or 'custodial detention' must be supported by probable cause. See Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979); Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 532 Pa. 62, 614 A.2d 1378 (1992). Id. at 293-94, 661 A.2d at 1047-48. (Emphasis added.) In Commonwealth v. McClease, 750 A.2d 320 (Pa. Super. 2000), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania stated: 3 In his affidavit of probable cause, Officer Pryor swore that, "While checking the two individuals for warrants this officer requested to have any marijuana that they may be holding." (Emphasis added.) -3- 01-1998 CRIMINAL TERM In determining whether a 'mere encounter' has risen to the level of an 'investigative detention,' the focus of our inquiry is on whether a 'seizure' of the person has occurred. Commonwealth v. Mendenhall, 552 Pa. 484, 715 A.2d 1117, 1120 (1998). Within this context, our courts employ the following objective standard to discern whether a person has been seized: '[W]hether, under all the circumstances surrounding the incident at issue, a reasonable person would believe he was free to leave.' Commonwealth v. Smith, 732 A.2d 1226, 1232 (Pa. Super. 1999) (emphasis added). See also Commonwealth v. Matos, 543 Pa. 449, 672 A.2d 769, 774 (1996). Thus, 'a seizure does not occur simply because a police officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions.' United States v. Klm, 27 F.3d 947, 950 (3d Cir. 1994). Id. at 324. (Emphasis added.) An investigative detention constitutes a seizure of the person and must be supported by reasonable suspicion that the person being detained is engaged in criminal activity. Commonwealth v. McClease, 750 A.2d 320 (Pa. Super. 2000). DISCUSSION When Officer Pryor stopped along side of the two young men he saw on Market Street because he wanted to know if they had just come from the party described to him by Officer Hockenberry, it was a mere encounter when he said to them, "Hey you guys - you got a minute - can I speak with you," and they said, "sure." That encounter continued as the officer talked to the men and learned that they had not come from the party, and they were both age 21. Although nothing was amiss, Officer Pryor then told defendant and Greenfield that he would be right back. He got into his patrol car and conducted a radio check on both of them. Under those circumstances, with Officer Pryor inside his patrol car checking on warrants, and Officer Hockenberry standing outside, no reasonable person would have felt free to leave after being told by Officer -4- 01-1998 CRIMINAL TERM Pryor that he would be right back. While Officer Pryor did not order defendant not to leave, contrast the facts in Commonwealth v. McClease, 750 A.2d 320 (Pa. Super. 2000), nevertheless, he displayed a sufficient show of authority to turn a mere encounter, in which a few questions were asked and answered, into an investigative detention to determine if there were any outstanding warrants on either man. That constituted a seizure. The intrusion of an investigative detention is only warranted if the police can point to specific and articulable facts which, in conjunction with rational inferences derived from those facts, give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Commonwealth v. E.M., 735 A.2d 654 (Pa. 1999). Shortly after the investigative detention occurred, Officer Pryor, upon learning during his radio check that defendant had been previously arrested in Harrisburg, said to him, "Hey Jordan - you would not be holding any marijuana would you." Defendant immediately took a smoking pipe and some marijuana out of his pocket and handed it to Officer Hockenberry. The illegal detention was the causative factor in defendant producing the marijuana and the drug paraphernalia. See Commonwealth v. McClease, supra. Consequently, the motion of defendant to suppress evidence of the contraband must be granted because its seizure was the fruit of the illegal detention. For the same reason, defendant's statement to Officer Pryor after he was arrested, and while he was being taken to the booking center, which was in response to the officer asking him why he produced the smoking pipe and marijuana, must also be suppressed as the fruit of the initial illegality. -5- 01-1998 CRIMINAL TERM AND NOW, this suppress evidence, IS GRANTED. ORDER OF COURT day of January, 2002, the motion of defendant to By the Court, Jonathan R. Birbeck, Esquire For the Commonwealth Ellen Barry, Esquire For Defendant :saa Edgar B. Bayley, J. -6-