Com. v. Johnson, V. ( 2017 )

J-A08004-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
VERQUEL JOHNSON
Appellee No. 3446 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order October 15, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000968-2015
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 14, 2017
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the suppression court properly
concluded that Officer Marchetti did not have reasonable suspicion to believe
that Johnson was involved in criminal activity to support an investigative
detention. I would affirm the suppression court’s order.
Officer Marchetti responded to a report of a burglary in progress on
the 6500 block of Linmore Avenue in Philadelphia. The flash information
described the suspects as two black males. As Officer Marchetti proceeded
to that street, he saw two people in a silver Chevy Malibu, which was parked
on that block, but not at the address where the robbery in progress was
reported. Officer Marchetti was asked whether he could tell whether the
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A08004-17
occupants of the Chevy were male or female when he saw them, to which
Officer Marchetti responded, “Initially I couldn’t tell who they were.” N.T.
Suppression Hearing, 10/15/15, at 12. Officer Marchetti, who was in full
uniform, backed up his patrol car to “block them in” because he had decided
he was going to “investigate the two gentlemen.” Id. at 10. Officer
Marchetti acknowledged that the occupants of the Chevy were not at the
scene of the reported burglary. He testified:
Q: So the 75-48 says you’re doing a vehicle investigation,
correct?
A: Correct.
Q: The notes from the preliminary hearing said that you back
up to block them in, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: Because you wanted to investigate them, right?
A: Yes.
Q: They weren’t at the scene of the burglary, right?
A: No.
****
Q: You didn’t see either one of the people in the car
committing any crime, did you?
A: At that time, no.
Q: Okay. So you were going to do either a vehicle
investigation or block them in for what charge?
A: At that time I was just going to investigate them.
Id. at 26-27.
-2-
J-A08004-17
The law in this Commonwealth is clear: in order to effectuate an
investigative detention, an officer must have reasonable suspicion that
criminal activity is afoot and that the person seized is involved in such
activity. In re M.D., 781 A.2d 192, 196 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citing Terry v.
Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968); see also Commonwealth v. Hicks, 253 A.2d
276, 280 (Pa.1969); Commonwealth v. Ranson, 103 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super.
2014); Commonwealth v. Taggart, 997 A.2d 1189 (Pa. Super. 2010);
Commonwealth v. Martinez, 588 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 1991).
As this Court has previously stated:
[I]n order for a stop to be reasonable under Terry [1], the police
officer's reasonable and articulable belief that criminal activity
was afoot must be linked with his observation of suspicious or
irregular behavior on the part of the particular defendant
stopped. Mere presence near a high crime area ... or in the
vicinity of a recently reported crime ... does not justify a
stop under Terry. Conversely, an officer's observation of
irregular behavior without a concurrent belief that crime is afoot
also renders a stop unreasonable.
Commonwealth v. Espada, 528 A.2d 968, 970 (Pa. Super. 1987)
(citations omitted) (emphasis added).
Here, the suppression court determined that Officer Marchetti’s
blocking the Chevy amounted to an investigative detention, which the
Commonwealth does not dispute. The suppression court also determined
that Officer Marchetti was unable to base that detention on specific and
____________________________________________
1
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
-3-
J-A08004-17
articulable facts that Johnson was involved in criminal activity. The fact that
Johnson was sitting in a parked car on the same block of the reported
burglary in progress does not amount to specific and articulable facts that
Johnson was engaged in illegal activity or that criminal activity was afoot.
Glaringly absent is some independent corroborating basis that gave rise to a
reasonable belief on Officer Marchetti’s part that the two individuals sitting in
a parked car were engaged in criminal activity. See Commonwealth v.
Ayala, 791 A.2d 1202 (Pa. Super. 2002). Simply put, the investigative
detention was not supported by reasonable suspicion. I agree with the
suppression court’s reasoning, and therefore, I would affirm.
-4-