HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0121-2006
COMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
MICHAEL SHEWBRIDGE NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 0121- 2006
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. RA.P. 1925
Guido, J., August
, 2006
The Commonwealth has appealed our grant of the defendant's motion to suppress
evidence. The facts of the case are quite simple. On October 27,2005 Officer James
Miller of the Upper Allen Township Police Department conducted a valid traffic stop of a
car in which the defendant was a passenger. During the course of the stop the officer
asked the driver if there was anything illegal inside the vehicle. The driver responded
that there was not. He then explained that he and his two passengers were just painters
on their way to work. Officer Miller asked for, and received, permission to search the
car.
The officer directed the driver and his passengers to get out of the car. He then
said he wanted to pat all of them down to check for weapons. 1 They agreed and
voluntarily produced some scraping tools before he began the pat down. During the pat
down of the defendant the officer found the marijuana at issue.
The Commonwealth argued that the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe
the occupants were armed and dangerous. As the Assistant District Attorney pointed out,
1 The officer explained that he did this for his own safety.
NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 0121 - 2006
"they were armed. . . they had tools.,,2 However, the tools were produced only after the
officer said he was going to pat them down for weapons. To that point there was nothing
to justify the pat down.
The defendant pointed us to the case of Commonwealth v. Myers, 728 A.2d 960
(Pa. Super 1999) which we found to be controlling. Even though the investigatory stop
was appropriate, the Myers Court held that the subsequent pat down for weapons was not.
Quoting from a Supreme Court decision, it held that a pat down would be justified only if
the "officer observes unusual and suspicious conduct on the part of the suspect which
leads him to reasonably believe that the suspect may be armed and dangerous. . ." 728
A.2d at 963 quoting from In the Interest of SJ, 551 Pa. 637, 643, 713 A.2d 45,48
(1998). There was no such conduct in the instant case.
Based upon the above case law, we felt compelled to suppress the evidence. As
we explained on the record:
Looking at Myers - - and Myers quotes the decision of the Supreme Court
in S J - - it continues to be the position of our Appellate Courts that
officers may not conduct pat-down searches for their own safety unless
they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the occupants of
vehicles or the people that they've stopped in investigatory stops are
armed and dangerous.
And at this point, at the time of the stop, there was no such reasonable and
articulable suspicion. I continue to hold as I have held many times that I
feel the Officers' actions were appropriate always. Always when in doubt
do the pat-down search.
You're first job is to get home to your families at night. IfI've got to
suppress evidence once in a while, that's much better than having to attend
- - having an officer injured. But I feel that based upon Commonwealth v.
Myers and the case of In The Interest of s.J I must suppress the evidence
in this case and will.3
2 Transcript of Suppression Proceedings, p. 17.
3 Transcript of Suppression Proceedings, p. 20.
2
NO. CP-21-CRIMINAL 0121 - 2006
DATE
Christin Mehrtens-Carlin, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Timothy L. Clawges, Esquire
F or the Defendant
:sld
Edward E. Guido, J.
3