Com. v. Lewis, D. ( 2014 )

J-S33022-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
DAVID LEWIS,
Appellee No. 2172 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Order of June 27, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014125-2012
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OLSON AND STABILE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JULY 30, 2014
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from an order
granting a motion to suppress physical evidence entered on June 27, 2013.
We reverse.
We summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as follows.
On April 16, 2013, Appellee, David Lewis, was charged with possession of a
firearm,1 possession of a firearm with an altered manufacturer number,2
carrying a firearm without a license,3 and carrying firearms in public in
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105.
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6110.2.
3
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106.
J-S33022-14
Philadelphia.4 These charges arose from an incident that occurred on
on surveillance in the 1900 block of Seltzer Street. As Officer Bartle was
returning to his squad car, he saw Appellee exit his vehicle, remove a
handgun from his waistband and place it in the trunk of his vehicle.
Appellee than returned to his car and began to drive away. Officer Bartle
and his partner Officer Bannon began to follow Appellee.
Officer Bartle informed other police officers in the surrounding area of
the situation. Subsequently, Officer Bartle and the other officers stopped
asked Appellee to step out of the vehicle and then asked if he had a permit
While Appellee was in custody, Officer Bartle, without a warrant,
d the handgun. After
Officer Bartle removed the gun, police handcuffed Appellee. Before the trial
court, Appellee moved to suppress the evidence found in the trunk because
police had not obtained a warrant to search his vehicle.
On June 13, 2013, the trial court issued an opinion setting forth its
____________________________________________
4
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108.
-2-
J-S33022-14
no exigent circumstances supported a warrantless vehicle search. A
corresponding order followed on June 27, 2013. On July 13, 2013, the
Commonwealth moved for reconsideration of the suppression order. On July
25, 2013, while the motion for reconsideration was pending, the
Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal and a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Thereafter, the trial
court issued a more comprehensive explanation of its ruling on October 2,
2013.
The Commonwealth raises the following issue on appeal:
[Did the trial] court err[] in suppressing a loaded
semiautomatic weapon which an officer saw [Appellee]
remove from his waistband and place in the trunk of his
car[?]
The Commonwealth contends that the trial court erred in suppressing
ehicle following a
warrantless search.
Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to an order granting
a motion to suppress is
factual findings are supported by the record and whether
the legal c
supported by the record, we are bound by these findings
conclusions
are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty is to
determine if the suppression court properly applied the law
-3-
J-S33022-14
to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts
below are subject to our plenary review.
Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010) (citations and
quotations omitted).
Furthermore, it is a well-established principle of law in this
entitled to the benefit of changes in law which occur before the judgment
Commonwealth v. Brown, 431 A.2d 905, 906-907 (Pa.
contention that the trial court erred in light of recent changes in the law.
warrantless search of a motor vehicle that is supported by probable cause,
Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution affords no greater
protection than the Fourth Amendment to t
Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102, 124 (Pa. 2014). Thus, our
the warrant requirement, which allows police officers to search a motor
vehicle when there is probable cause to do so and does not require any
Id. at 104.
Applying this new principle of search and seizure law to the facts of the
motion to suppress physical evidence. Officer Bartle had the necessary
-4-
J-S33022-14
remove a handgun from his waistband and place it in the trunk of his
vehicle. This observation was sufficient to establish probable cause. This
firearm] was a sufficient basis for [a] trained police officer to reasonably
infer that [the individual] was acting in violation of the statutory prohibition
against carrying a firearm on public streets or on public property in
Commonwealth v. Romero, 673 A.2d 374, 377 (Pa.
Super. 1996).
Under the new standard set forth by our Supreme Court in Gary,
probable cause alone is sufficient to establish grounds for warrantless search
of a vehicle. Here, the police possessed the requisite probable cause for a
physical evidence in this case.
Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/30/2014
-5-