Com. v. Latty, D. ( 2019 )

J-S32005-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
DWAYNE ANTHONY LATTY :
:
Appellant : No. 3433 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 27, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-39-CR-0005896-2017
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2019
Dwayne Anthony Latty (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered after the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, sitting as
the factfinder in Appellant’s nonjury trial, found him guilty of Possession with
Intent to Deliver (“PWID”) a Controlled Substance (cocaine), Possession of a
Controlled Substance (cocaine), Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and
Speeding.1 We affirm.
In its opinion to this Court, the trial court explained the procedural
history of this case as follows:
[Appellant] was charged in the above-captioned matter with
[PWID] (cocaine), Possession of a Controlled Substance (cocaine),
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Speeding. An Omnibus
Pretrial Motion in the nature of a Motion to Suppress Physical
____________________________________________
1 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), (16), (32), and 75 Pa.C.S. § 3362(a),
respectively.
J-S32005-19
Evidence was filed by [Appellant]. An evidentiary hearing relative
to [Appellant’s] motion was conducted before this [c]ourt on June
4, 2018. At the evidentiary hearing, the Commonwealth
presented the testimony of Trooper Brian Konopka of the
Pennsylvania State Police, Fogelsville Barracks. [Appellant] did
not testify on his own behalf. In addition, this [c]ourt reviewed
the dash cam video from the subject stop. After hearing, by Order
and Opinion [dated] June 18, 2018, this [c]ourt denied
[Appellant’s] Omnibus Pretrial Motion.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/7/18, at 1–2 (original footnotes omitted). In disposing
of Appellant’s omnibus motion, the suppression court entered the following
findings of fact:
1. On October 4, 2017, at approximately 4:40 P.M., Trooper Brian
Konopka of the Pennsylvania State Police, Fogelsville Barracks,
was patrolling in the area of Interstate 78 west in Allentown,
Upper Saucon Township, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
Trooper Konopka was patrolling in a marked vehicle and in full
uniform.
2. Trooper Konopka observed a silver Chevrolet Cruze traveling
the center lane of travel at a very slow rate of speedy, thereby
impeding the flow of traffic.5 Trooper Konopka then proceeded
to follow the subject vehicle. During this interval, the vehicles
[sic] speed increased substantially. In fact, Trooper Konopka
clocked the vehicle . . . traveling at 68 mph in a posted 55 mph
zone. Therefore, Trooper Konopka initiated a traffic stop on I-
78 westbound.
5 [Appellant] was traveling at approximately 40 mph
in a posted 55 mph zone.
3. There were two (2) occupants in the subject vehicle. Trooper
Konopka approached the passenger side of the vehicle and
immediately detected a strong smell of raw marijuana
emanating from the vehicle. In addition, there were numerous
black tree-shaped air fresheners throughout the vehicle.6
Trooper Konopka also observed in the vehicle an iPhone that
was being used as a GPS device. The iPhone displayed a
destination that was over eight (8) hours away.
-2-
J-S32005-19
6 Trooper Konopka testified that there were
approximately five (5) to ten (10) air fresheners
spread out between the front of the vehicle and the
rear passenger compartment. Based on Trooper
Konopka’s training and experience, he opined that air
fresheners are used to mask odors of contraband in
case canines are called on scene, as well as from plain
smell.
4. Trooper Konopka requested that the driver and the passenger
provide him with the appropriate documents, including their
identification. This request was complied with, and
consequently the driver was identified as [Appellant] of
Brooklyn, New York. The front passenger was identified as
[Appellant’s] friend, Fabian Jackson, of Houston, Texas. In
addition, the vehicle was registered to a third party who resided
in Allentown, Pennsylvania, and who was not present in the
vehicle at the time of the stop.
5. Trooper Konopka requested that [Appellant] exit his vehicle so
that [the trooper] could speak with him. Upon complying,
[Appellant] appeared to be nervous. He told Trooper Konopka
that he was traveling to Maryland from New York, but was
unable to provide any specific details. Interesting, Trooper
Konopka noted that this information contradicted the
destination on the iPhone GPS. Also, [Appellant] advised
Trooper Konopka that he had been driving the vehicle for
approximately one and a half (1 ½) years and that he received
it from his Jamaican friend, Richard Hines, in exchange for a
truck.7 [Appellant’s] behavior appeared unusual, as he
repeatedly stuttered and would not make eye contact with
Trooper Konopka during their conversation. Trooper Konopka
requested consent to search the vehicle based on the totality
of the circumstances surrounding the traffic stop and
[Appellant] denied consent.
7 [Appellant] later related to Trooper Konopka that
the vehicle was given to him by a friend.
6. After speaking with [Appellant], Trooper Konopka spoke
separately with the passenger while he was still in the vehicle.
Mr. Jackson told Trooper Konopka that they were traveling to
Charlotte from New York,8 but did not know what state
Charlotte was located [in]. Then, Trooper Konopka inquired if
-3-
J-S32005-19
there was any marijuana in the vehicle. At this time, Mr.
Jackson produced a clear plastic container from his right pants
pocket containing a small amount of suspected marijuana. At
this time, Trooper Konopka took possession of the marijuana
and requested that the passenger exit the vehicle.
8 Trooper Konopka testified that New York is a known
source city for narcotics, meaning that narcotics are
frequently transported out of New York to other United
State[s] destinations.
7. Based on his training and experience, as well as his
observations and the circumstances surrounding the vehicle
stop, Trooper Konopka conducted a search of the vehicle. As
a result of this search, Trooper Konopka located a black plastic
grocery-style bag behind the spare tire in the trunk of the
vehicle. Upon opening the bag, Trooper Konopka located a
clear air-tight plastic bag containing a yellow in color cylindrical
package with the word “Navi” in black marker on it. Trooper
Konopka peeled back the packaging and observed a white
powdery substance that he suspected to be cocaine. There
appeared to be approximately 530 grams of suspected
cocaine.9
9 The suspected cocaine field-tested positive for cocaine.
8. Consequently, [Appellant] and Mr. Jackson were placed into
custody and transported to the Fogelsville Barracks of the
Pennsylvania State Police.10
10 Consistent with drug trafficking, [Appellant] had two (2)
cellular phones on his person, including a BLU smart phone
and an LG [s]mart phone. Similarly, Mr. Jackson possessed
two cellular phones, including an LG phone and an Apple
iPhone.
9. This Court finds Trooper Konopka’s testimony to be credible.
Suppression Court Opinion, 6/19/18, at 2–5. Based on its findings of fact, the
suppression court reached the following legal conclusions:
1. The stop and detention of [Appellant] was lawful in that
Trooper Konopka pointed to specific and articulable facts
-4-
J-S32005-19
causing him to have a reasonable suspicion and probable cause
that criminal activity may be afoot.
2. Trooper Konopka possessed probable cause to arrest
[Appellant].
3. The search of [Appellant’s] vehicle was lawful and supported
by probable cause.
4. The physical evidence obtained by the police was not obtained
in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution, and need not be suppressed.
Id. at 5.
Thereafter:
[o]n August 27, 2018, a non-jury trial was conducted. After trial,
this [c]ourt found [Appellant] guilty of [the above-referenced
charges]. Then, on September 27, 2018, this [c]ourt sentenced
[Appellant] to a term of imprisonment in a state correctional
facility of not less than three (3) years nor more than six (6) years
on the charge of [PWID] a Controlled Substance (cocaine). No
sentence was imposed on the charge of Possession of a Controlled
Substance, (cocaine), as it merged for sentencing purposes. In
addition, this [c]ourt imposed a sentence of not less than one (1)
month nor more than twelve (12) months on the charge of
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. This sentence was ordered to
run concurrently to the sentence imposed on the charge of [PWID]
a Controlled Substance (cocaine). Finally, this [c]ourt imposed a
fine of $51.00 on the charge of Speeding.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/7/18, at 2.
Appellant filed post-sentence motions on October 2, 2018, which the
trial court denied on November 7, 2018. This appeal followed. Appellant and
the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, Appellant presents three questions for our consideration:
-5-
J-S32005-19
A. Did the suppression court commit an error of law by denying
Appellant’s motion to suppress because the State Trooper
lacked sufficient grounds to extend the traffic stop beyond that
which was necessary for the initial stop?
B. Did the suppression court commit an error of law by denying
Appellant’s motion to suppress because the State Trooper
lacked probable cause to conduct a search of the trunk of the
vehicle in which [Appellant] was traveling?
C. Whether the trial court committed an error of law in convicting
the Appellant of possession with the intent to distribute
fentanyl recovered from the trunk of a vehicle in which
[Appellant] was traveling?
Appellant’s Brief at 3 (full capitalization omitted).
We first address Appellant’s third issue because a successful sufficiency-
of-the-evidence claim requires discharge. Commonwealth v. Mikitiuk, ___
A.3d ___, ___, 2019 PA Super 195, *7 (Pa. Super. filed June 20, 2019). As
a preliminary matter, we must consider whether Appellant has preserved this
issue for appellate review.
This Court has stated, “In order to preserve a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, an appellant’s [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(b)
statement must state with specificity the element or elements upon which the
appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient.” Commonwealth v.
Stiles, 143 A.3d 968, 982 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super. 2013)) (internal quotation marks
omitted; emphasis added); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) (“[T]he
Statement shall concisely identify each ruling or error that the appellant
intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues for the
-6-
J-S32005-19
judge.”). “Such specificity is of particular importance in cases where, as here,
[A]ppellant was convicted of multiple crimes each of which contains numerous
elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Garland, 63 A.3d at 344. Failure to identify what specific elements the
Commonwealth did not prove at trial in a Rule 1925(b) statement renders an
appellant’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim waived for appellate review. See
Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254, 261 (Pa. Super. 2015) (finding
appellant’s issues waived where “1925(b) statement simply declared, in
boilerplate fashion, that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction”).
Here, Appellant generically states the following in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement:
Whether the trial court committed an error of law in convicting the
Appellant of possession with the intent to distribute Fentanyl
recovered from the trunk of a vehicle in which he was traveling.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 12/17/18, at ¶ C (full capitalization omitted).
Appellant does not identify any element of the PWID or other convictions that
was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, Appellant’s
“Statement of Questions Involved” fails to specify what element(s) of PWID
he is challenging on appeal. Appellant’s Brief at 3. Finally, Appellant identifies
the recovered contraband as Fentanyl, but he was charged with and convicted
of possessing cocaine. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 12/17/18, at ¶ C;
Appellant’s Brief at 3. Consequently, Appellant’s nonspecific and inaccurate
-7-
J-S32005-19
claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, which fails to state any
elements of any crimes allegedly not proven by the Commonwealth, is waived.
Tyack, 128 A.3d at 261.
We note that, in the argument section of his appellate brief, Appellant
complains that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the PWID and
possession convictions. Appellant’s Brief at 41. According to Appellant, the
Commonwealth “failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he
constructively possessed . . . the drugs hidden in the vehicle” or that he
“actually knew of the existence of the contraband [and] if he did, he had the
intent to possess it[.]” Id. at 42. To the extent that Appellant attempts to
challenge the sufficiency of the possession and mens rea evidence supporting
his possession convictions, we would conclude that, even if not waived, his
claim would not merit relief.
In reaching this conclusion, we would rely on—and adopt as our own—
the well-reasoned analysis of the trial court in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/7/18, at 3–8. After stating the applicable law and
reiterating the facts of record, the trial court disposed of Appellant’s sufficiency
challenge as follows:
Viewing all the evidence and all reasonable inferences
arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, it is clear that the evidence was sufficient to
enable a finder of fact to conclude that all the elements of the
offenses were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, at
the conclusion of the bench trial, this [c]ourt had no doubt that
[Appellant] constructively possessed the [cocaine], and that he
possessed it with the intent to deliver it.
-8-
J-S32005-19
Id. at 8. In sum, were we to reach this issue, we would conclude the
Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant possessed
the cocaine found in the trunk of the vehicle he was driving with the intent to
deliver it.
Appellant’s remaining issues challenge the trial court’s denial of his
motion to suppress physical evidence of cocaine recovered from the vehicle
he was driving. Appellant’s Brief at 14, 36. With respect to an appeal from
the denial of a motion to suppress, our Supreme Court has stated the
following:
Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court’s
denial of a suppression motion is whether the factual findings are
supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn
from those facts are correct. When reviewing the ruling of a
suppression court, we must consider only the evidence of the
prosecution and so much of the evidence of the defense as
remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record ....
Where the record supports the findings of the suppression court,
we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal
conclusions drawn therefrom are in error.
Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007) (citations
omitted). “It is within the suppression court’s sole province as factfinder to
pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their
testimony.” Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 896 A.2d 583, 585 (Pa. Super.
2006). Moreover, we note that our scope of review from a suppression ruling
is limited to the evidentiary record that was created at the suppression
hearing. In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073, 1087 (Pa. 2013). In addition, questions
-9-
J-S32005-19
of the admission and exclusion of evidence are within the sound discretion of
the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
Commonwealth v. Freidl, 834 A.2d 638, 641 (Pa. Super. 2003).
On appeal, Appellant first argues that Trooper Konopka “did not have a
‘particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting that [A]ppellant had or was
engaging in criminal activity after he returned to [A]ppellant upon finding
nothing unusual or suspicious in [A]ppellant’s and the vehicle’s paperwork.”
Appellant’s Brief at 22. According to Appellant, “[m]ere nervousness and the
other observations[2] by the [trooper] before he checked the documents and
ran the licenses certainly did not provide grounds to continue an ended traffic
stop.” Id. at 27.3
Appellant supports his argument that the extended detention was
unlawful with citations to older decisions. He fails to address the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court’s recent decision in In Interest of A.A., 195 A.3d 896 (Pa.
2018). Therein, our Supreme Court confirmed that:
“all relevant facts” and the “whole picture” necessarily includes
any information learned by a police officer during an initial lawful
traffic stop, irrespective of whether or not the officer suggests at
____________________________________________
2 Appellant identifies the “other observations” as “inconsistent responses, air
fresheners, a smell of marijuana, and a trip calculator that looked suspicious.”
Appellant’s Brief at 33 (footnote omitted).
3 In response, the Commonwealth relies on the suppression court’s analysis.
Commonwealth’s Brief at 9. The suppression court’s analysis consists of citing
relevant legal authority and repeating its findings of fact. Suppression Court
Opinion, 6/19/18, at 5–7, 7–9.
- 10 -
J-S32005-19
some point during that stop that the subject of the stop is free to
leave or tells him or her to “have a good night.”
Id. at 910 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, Appellant’s legal
authority is inapposite.
As for the merit of Appellant’s first suppression argument, we conclude
that he is not entitled to relief. Trooper Konopka stopped Appellant for a
violation of the Motor Vehicle Code. N.T., 6/4/18, at 4–5.4 Upon processing
Appellant’s documentation, Trooper Konopka learned that Appellant’s license
was valid and he had no active warrants. Id. at 12. Trooper Konopka re-
approached Appellant to ask him “some clarifying questions about his vehicle
and his travel arrangement due to the major conflictions [sic] that [the
trooper] obtained on [his] initial traffic stop.” Id. When Trooper Konopka
extended the traffic stop by questioning Appellant about his possession of the
vehicle, he knew the following relevant facts:
 Trooper Konopka had five years of experience as a Pennsylvania
State Police Trooper, approximately 150 to 200 drug arrests during
that period, and over 300 hours of criminal intra-diction training.
N.T., 6/4/18, at 4, 10.
 Appellant produced a New York driver’s license, the vehicle was
registered to a third-person who was not present in the vehicle, and
the registration card was not signed. Id. at 7, 13.
 Appellant gave inconsistent statements related to his possession of
the vehicle. Id. at 8, 12–13.
____________________________________________
4 Appellant does not challenge the validity of the traffic stop by Trooper
Konopka. N.T., 6/4/18, at 34.
- 11 -
J-S32005-19
 Appellant appeared nervous; he was unable to provide specific details
as to his travel plans; his statement that he was traveling from New
York to Maryland contradicted the iPhone GPS display. Id. at 8–9.
 Appellant stuttered and would not make eye contact with the trooper.
Id. at 9.
 Trooper Konopka detected a strong smell of raw marijuana
emanating from the vehicle, saw “a significant number” of tree-
shaped air fresheners throughout the passenger compartment of the
vehicle, and knew that air fresheners are used to “mask any type of
odor.” Id. at 9–10, 14–15.
 The passenger, Fabian Jackson, stated he was traveling from New
York to “Charlotte,” but he did not know where Charlotte was. Id.
at 10.
 Trooper Konopka knew that New York is a source city for narcotics,
which are then transported throughout the United States. Id. at 10–
11.
Based on the foregoing facts of record, we conclude that Trooper
Konopka had reasonable suspicion to extend the initial detention in order to
investigate Appellant’s inconsistent statements about his possession of the
vehicle and his travel plans. In Interest of A.A., 195 A.3d at 910.
Appellant’s contrary claim fails.
In his second suppression issue, Appellant argues that Trooper Konopka
lacked probable cause to search the trunk of the vehicle. Appellant’s Brief at
36. According to Appellant, “after [Mr.] Jackson exited the car with his
personal supply of marijuana,” Trooper Konopka did not observe any other
odor, drugs, or paraphernalia in the vehicle; therefore, the trooper lacked
“probable cause to believe that there was additional drugs or contraband in
the car.” Id. at 40. In support of his position, Appellant directs our attention
- 12 -
J-S32005-19
to this Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Scott, ___ A.3d ___,
2019 PA Super 154 (Pa. Super. filed May 10, 2019), wherein we reviewed the
warrantless search of a vehicle trunk. Appellant’s Reply Brief at 1.
The Scott Court reiterated the legal principles relevant to a warrantless
search of a vehicle:
The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor
vehicle is probable cause to search; no exigency
beyond the inherent mobility of a motor vehicle is
required. The consistent and firm requirement for
probable cause is a strong and sufficient safeguard
against illegal searches of motor vehicles, whose
inherent mobility and the endless factual
circumstances that such mobility engenders
constitute a per se exigency allowing police officers to
make the determination of probable cause in the first
instance in the field.
The level of probable cause necessary for warrantless
searches of automobiles is the same as that required to obtain a
search warrant. Probable cause does not demand the certainty
we associate with formal trials. Rather, a determination of
probable cause requires only that the totality of the circumstances
demonstrates a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a
crime will be found in a particular place. The evidence required to
establish probable cause for a warrantless search must be more
than a mere suspicion or a good faith belief on the part of the
police officer.
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that an
odor may be sufficient to establish probable cause.... [W]e
analogized a ‘plain smell’ concept with that of plain view and held
that where an officer is justified in being where he is, his detection
of the odor of marijuana is sufficient to establish probable cause.
Regarding the search of an automobile, the scope of a
warrantless search of an automobile ... is not defined by the
nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted.
Rather, it is defined by the object of the search and the places in
which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. It
- 13 -
J-S32005-19
follows from the foregoing that if a police officer possesses
probable cause to search a motor vehicle, he may then conduct a
search of the trunk compartment without seeking to obtain
probable cause relative to the particularized area.
Scott, ___ A.3d at ___, 2019 PA Super 154 at *3–4 (internal quotation marks,
citations, and original brackets omitted).
In Scott, a police officer stopped the defendant for a motor vehicle
violation. When the officer approached the vehicle, “he could smell the strong
odor of burnt marijuana . . . and saw that smoke was still emanating from the
vehicle. He also saw [the defendant] attempt to place a blunt in the center
counsel.” Scott, ___ A.3d at ___, 2019 PA Super 154 at *1 (citing Trial Court
Opinion, 1/30/18, at 2–3). After detaining the defendant and without asking
consent, police officers searched the passenger compartment of the vehicle,
where they found a blunt, a jar of alleged marijuana, and a black ski mask;
they could smell only the odor of burnt marijuana. Id. The police officers
then searched the trunk of the vehicle, where they “found a loaded .38 caliber
revolver wrapped in clothes.” Id. (citing Trial Court Opinion, 1/30/18, at 3).
The defendant litigated a motion to suppress the firearm recovered from
the trunk, arguing “that the officers conducted an illegal, warrantless search
of the trunk.” Scott, ___ A.3d at ___, 2019 PA Super 154 at *2 (citing N.T.,
10/30/17, at 28, 30). The trial court granted the defendant’s suppression
motion, concluding that the officers lacked probable cause to search the trunk
because the smell and contraband were limited to the passenger compartment
of the vehicle.
- 14 -
J-S32005-19
On appeal of the suppression ruling, the Commonwealth argued that the
federal automobile exception adopted by a plurality of the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014)
(plurality), authorized the search. According to the Commonwealth, the Gary
Court opined that, “[i]f probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully
stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its
contents that may conceal the object of the search.” Gary, 91 A.3d at 11
(quoting United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982)). “Based upon the
existence of probable cause, as well as the officers’ recovery of the blunt and
an additional jar of marijuana from the passenger compartment, the
Commonwealth insist[ed] that ‘the officers were entitled to search anywhere
in the car, including the trunk, for additional’ drugs.” Scott, ___ A.3d at ___,
2019 PA Super 154 at *2.
The Scott Court affirmed the trial court, agreeing that the police officer
did not establish sufficient probable cause to continue to search the trunk” of
the defendant’s vehicle. Scott, ___ A.3d at ___, 2019 PA Super 154 at *4.
According to the Scott panel:
the lingering odor of burnt marijuana was consistent with the
contraband that the officer observed in plain view. . . .
Furthermore, the record does not provide any other facts that
could have supported a belief that additional contraband was
located in the trunk. The officer did not testify that [the
defendant] fidgeted or displayed nervous behavior. . . .
* * *
- 15 -
J-S32005-19
Likewise, the officer did not indicate that he had received
any sort of special training to support his belief that additional
contraband was located in the trunk.
Under these circumstances, the odor of burnt marijuana and
small amount of contraband recovered from the passenger
compartment of the vehicle did not create a fair probability that
the officer could recover additional contraband in the trunk.
Id. at *4–5 (internal citations omitted).
Upon review, we consider Scott factually distinguishable and conclude
that the trial court did not err in denying suppression. In contrast to the lack
of evidence providing probable cause to search the trunk in Scott, the totality
of the circumstances known to Trooper Konopka during the extended
detention provided probable cause to search the trunk of Appellant’s vehicle.
Trooper Konopka’s training and experience as a drug enforcement officer, the
significant quantity of air fresheners, Appellant’s nervous demeanor, his
inconsistent statements regarding possession of the vehicle, and the
contradictory evidence about his travel plans, along with the following facts of
record support Trooper Konopka’s search of the trunk:
 When Trooper Konopka asked Appellant “if there’s any heroin, cocaine,
marijuana, large quantities of untaxed cigarettes, if there’s large
quantities of US currency in the vehicle[,]” Appellant looked “at the
vehicle multiple times but he had related ‘no’ to all of them.” N.T.,
6/4/18, at 13.
 When Trooper Konopka asked Appellant for consent to search the
vehicle, Appellant asked why; when the trooper explained he was
looking for any of the items he had just mentioned, Appellant denied
consent. Id. When Trooper Konopka asked Appellant why the vehicle smelled like
marijuana, Appellant became very defensive, denied any knowledge
- 16 -
J-S32005-19
about marijuana in the vehicle or “why it might smell like that.” Id. at
13–14.
 When asked about marijuana in the vehicle, Mr. Jackson first responded
negatively. Id. at 26–27. He later produced a small amount of
marijuana and informed Trooper Konopka that the vehicle smelled like
marijuana because the passenger “had it in his hand and had to put it
back into a small container that he had and put it back into his pocket.”
Id. at 14.
 In Trooper Konopka’s training and experience, “numerous criminals
have produced a small amount of marijuana as a way to get the police
to stop searching vehicles and thus, say, ‘Oops, you got me. Here’s a
small amount of marijuana,’ when in fact there’s a large quantity of it,
either an additional substance or that same substance in the vehicle.”
Id. at 29.
 Appellant and the passenger each possessed two cell phones, which,
according to Trooper Konopka’s training and experience, is common
among “people who are often trafficking narcotics or contraband or
anything illegal[.]” Id. at 16–17.
We reiterate: “If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped
vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that
may conceal the object of the search.” Gary, 91 A.3d at 11. Here, Appellant’s
vehicle was lawfully stopped, and the totality of the circumstances provided
probable cause to search the passenger compartment and trunk of the vehicle
for contraband. Appellant’s contrary claim lacks merit.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
- 17 -
J-S32005-19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/15/19
- 18 -
Circulated 07/26/2019 10:42 AM
.:: :-::. ::·::::·:::· .. .>::) ·:::: .. :: ::::·>::.:: ::::;: .:::.::: :::··:
·COMMONWEALTH OFPENNSXJ:.V'ANIA·· ··· ···· ··
. .. . .
· .. ·:.::.. ·:· :: .:: ::.:
.: : :. -:.
: ·: .... :::.: :: :: :.'.. '. : ."
.. ::.::·· .: ::: ::·:::-:: ..
. : ': ".".
.
·::
. . •• } . ****
. . . .. .. ..
:: . ·:::. ·; ,: ·. ·:: .·:: .
•· l . . ·
• KEVIN M¢¢iosI. J.• •• .•
DEPU'IY DISTRICT A'I"I'ORNEY, ... .: .: .•
. . . On behal(ofthe po�qriy,ealth.
..........• ,;. ******* ..
······ ···································:·•••·:···············:················:
. .. . :
... ··;· ·:: ·:
. .
...
... .....
·;·
. .....
. ..
·:· ::
........
.
.
,· :· :··.·::·: ... ·::: :: -: ::: :;. .. ·:.::: .:
.: : .: ::::. .... :
chatge�t iri tlle
·:::.
. Dwayne Latty, . wa.s above..c:aptioneci
mattex. \Vith • Posse.ssioll •• \Vith•• lntertt. •.to •• Deliver •• a •• Controlled •• Suqstance •• {cocait1eJ1I•.••
: ... ::: .: ::::; ): ::::: ::.:::: :::.:::: :::· :·:·:::::·:·::-.:::·<:<· ::::: :: ..... :.:::-::: .:.: .::·:.: ·:·· .: .: :::-: ·::·.:: ::::: ·::.:.::: .'. ::: :
Possession > of>a.•• i Controlled $ttl>stan.ce {6ocaitle),2 })()SS�S�<>n pf Drug •..
.i:. :: :: ::,:: ... :, .:::::::::·:-:.::: : .. :.:::. : :
· . ·: .: :::::./t\\:.·::":1\ TT\\\;\/::::..:::::::_:;/.:.:::
Paraphe
. , · ..• •.. i1•
m�1�; a an. .d : ..hG1.g,.4 .n.u.
:s· •pee�, "·....·•.• ·.•o
..··..· ·mru
.·.····.·.··..·
b.··u ·.:·..•p
·•·.•s
· · ....•·.....•· .•.•.• ·M· ·o
·.·..•r·.·e··.··t"n" .
·ti
•.··.o·•.·n
1
··.·•.··m ·..th
.. ·.. .· ·.·.····
e.·.·..·.n.·..a..·tu ··. ..·r
..· ·.·e
··
.•····.O
.··r
. ·.·.· a.·.· .
An·T��ehtiaty •
•
·.
·
·
·
·
·
•
.·
.
·
··
··
•.
.
·
· •
··
•
·
·
·
··
•to••suppress• I'hysic�.Evidence.Was.ftled:�y �e$)e(end&fit. ••.•
Motion
• heating. relative• •to• I)efer1J�t's. ·�()J()n. \V8.S. dohc1ucted. • ll�fdre•. this1. Court. ()Il. ·June.·. .
...... ·····:·:::":":.:: :::·.::.:·::.: :·.::::::·.: .. : ....
•·1·: as·-e.s;•§•7so�113(a.H�O) .•..
· as P.s. § is(j�l.la(a)(16J.·
35 e:.s;§ rao .. n3(aH32).
··15 Pa.; q.s.A. § 3362(a),
:
:
. : . ·.
..
·:.·:
:-::. · .. ·:
:
. :
:·:::::::·.::
.:.:.:
.: ::
:· .····
::: ·:·· ::.·.:: ;:::::: .. .:::
·: .. : . ::: .: :· .. ..
:::: .
:.· ···: :·.
:-- ..
: .
4, 2ors. Afthe evideritlary hearing, the Cofilrttoriwealth presented t'.lle tes1:iritot1y ...
:.: .. ::·. ·:· :······· .. : :; :: ::·····:: ... :. :: .· .. ····.:· ., ... ··· :.::: .. : .. · :::,::::: :.: :····:·. ·: ·::· .. : . ... .. ... . :· ·: .. :: .. · .. ·
. ·:-:···· ... :. :. :: :: .: ... :::. .. . .... < .:: .:::-: ... ::: .. : .. :::· ::: '. .::-:, ·.: ::: : ::.: :· . ::. : .. ... ·:· · .
. of Trooper. aHa11 l{()nopka. of the • Peru1sylvB1,1ie.' state·folice,.• idgelsViUe•. i3�ac�s .
. .. :·· ::::· ·:·: .' :·:: ::.: -. ·:· :::·::.:::: :::;: .i.. :::::::: ·:·.-::: :: ::';" ::i:· ::::: :::: ;: ;::::: ::; . ·:···::.::::-.-::: -::; : . :::.::: .. :::. :: -: :··:: ::.::::: .. :: ... :: .
The befe11ci8ft did. not. te$tify pn his. own .1:>eli�...• Iri kddition, •.this. Court. reviewed
·the dash.cam.video.frqrnlthe. subject.stoP .: After.hearfug,. by.C>rder• arid.Qpinfon .()f
. :· : . :: ": . :· :: ·: ::: :: ::. :: ·:: ·::. ::· .. ::: :: .. :::�::::. :::::: ... : .... :::: ': ::: .::: :: :: . ::::: .. : : .. :::· :: ·:::>:: .. ::; . :: :::: ::: ·::::;::: .:
June is, 2ofs,.this c()urt denied theoere#dant's C>lllnibus fyeµ,al Motion.·••• •·•··
Ori)\\lgUst 27, 20t8, •� non-juey trial sw� coridl.lcted. }Aftertria.1,
··:: :: .: : .: .. · : .... : .: .... : :. ·:· .·. :·: :: ·:· ·:; ·:··· :: ::: :. : :: .: ·:· ::. -: .:: ... : .·: -: ·:·· -: ·;· .:
·::: :: ... ::: :::.: :: .. : .:::.: :::.::: ::>,. :;·· :::. ::·:: ::: ::::· :::: :::--:: ::: .:< :·.:: ;:::.:: :::: :: .. ::· .. ::· ::·:::. ·:: .. ::·· :: .:
this Cburt.founc[tlle Qefend�t gtiilty :ofP0s$¢$sJ0n With b1teh,t to f.)eliyet a
: :
.. :· ·.: .: :: :: :::: ::::-:: .. : :: :: .·: .:: ·::.::·:::. :: :::::": ·:::··::: .. ::·:· ::·-:::·::· :::: ·::; :::.::· :::·· .. ::: ::·: ::-:> :. :::· >-::: .: :::·::. ::::::: ::: ·::::-: ·::
. controllecl •• §ubsta.11te···(Cocaine)IPosse$$ioti'. br' a.. Contr()l1ed• $Ubsta11qe·· (cocaill�), ..
. : :· ·.:,::; :::.::::: :: :: : ·:: :: :: ::: ·:: :: ::: :·; >:::·:: ·::: ':::<:::; :: ::::::.: :::·::: .::.:::.. .: < ... :: : ····: _:: .. : :.:: . . : . ::· > :;:: .. ·:·:
Possession. of Dr.ug Parapher11alia., .• arid. Sp�eding.• Tqen,. on. September. 27,. 2018 I.
: ·::. :· :.: .:· :: :.::· .:: :: .:·: :_::.::: : ·:::·:: :· :
this CQurf sentehced •• the Detenda�t to a terxn pf imprisorirneht in a . state •.
:·· .. ··: :: :: _: ::·: .. · .. : :··.::· '::: : .. ::":::-··::::: ·: .. .. .
· cOfre¢tiot1al •• facilifJr:··of. not •• less •• th#• tbtee •• (i3) •• ye�$ •• llOt··IpOte·fhE111 • six.••(6l. years••
On th� bha.rge of Po�����i6ll \vitfi ·Int�tt(t<> Delivef a: C¢htt()Ued Sub�tal\Ce
. . . ·········�· ..•.........................
:: :-::. :::::, :": ::· ::: ·····.:: ::-:::::.:":· :. ::- ::· ·.·::::: :.:: :::: .:. :-:· ::: ::.::: ::::::·::. :.:: :·· ·:::-::: ..
. (cocaine).··· �o•sentence was. irnp()ser •• sentencing •• putpqaes •• • • •• 111 ••• a.dditi()rt, •• tliis
:·:·: ..... ·::· ... :· .::.. ..: ::.:. :: <: .. :: ::: .. ::::::::. :::.:·::-.: :::::. ::::::·:::·:::::-:><: <: :. :: ;:· .:·::·.::::: .... ::::::: ::: ::· :::
tllan••twelfe·.•
:'"··<: .
Court• imposed •• s., •• seriterice. of nC>t:le�s •• thari. 011e.(l):..xn.or1tb..nor •• rriore.
:: _::·::: .:::: .. ::. .. !: ::: .:::·.::::< :::::-:::.: :::.::::.::.:: :::. :: .. ·:.:::::. ::::. :::::::·_.::::::· .. ::::<:-:::<::::-:::::: :·::: ::::::·:::::;::· :::::·:
{12) m<>11ths 011)1:ie cb.arge of Pd$sessidf o{pfug P.iaptjernalia... This se11ter1ce
: . ·:.: <:' .::: ·:: ·::: ::::.::·:::::·:::·.::::::·::··.: :: :: .. _::::::: :::::, :>>·!>"·::::::::::::; :··.:: :):·.:::::::::::::::::·:::·:::. :: :;: ::: :::>::·:::: :::::::>:::::::
was·• ordere4 ••. to •• !l'l.1tl •• CC>IlC\lft'elltlY••fo•• tb.�·· se�tertcf • i111posed .• ori. the • charge _8('
. : . : ·· .:::.::. :;. ::::: :: : .:: :: .:'-. ::: .. _.· :: .. : ::::::.:::.::: .: ·> :::. :: :·:·::::.: ·::···. :: ·:;·::::: .:; .. ::· ::· .::·:· .. :.: ..
PossessioJi Vlith ]ntet1t to l)eliyer a Ct>litrqllecl $µpstance (cbcairie). F'irially, �liis
:: : .. : ·:::: ·::: :::: ·.· :: ·.· .. ::: .: .· · .. .:· ::·· :: ··::.:: :: : : .. : : ·::. :: ·: .:::·::: .:· : : .. :::::
$51•.oo• orl. tlle.cluttge. of .SP,eecHng.· • l'fesently. before.tlµs •
,.,
. ·court.iniposecl••a•fine · of
.. .. . :.: .:::: ::::· :::: :: ::··::: :·::·:: ::·:: ·::::··:::·::: :: :: ":::·::::. :::·:::::.:;:·:::::::::.::: :: .. ···: :::: :::·.::::::::::: . :·.::::::- :.<::: .: : ·:: :·:-::: ::·:: .. : ·:·· :::· ::·::·: ..
· ... Court .• is ..• I)efendant's •. •})ost···���te11ce • ¥6tiori···Nrsuant .tq •. Pennsylvailia •• Rtile,of
.... .. .. . . ······ ····· . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . .
.. ..Criminal. Pfbcedure
,., . . . ••. Rule
. .. . . ••. 72().... . . . the.·
111' . . . l)efendarit's . . . . . Sentence
. .. .. . . . • .Motions
, ,. , ,. ,.,. ,. ,.
. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . Pdst
:"' : .. :::· :>· .:::-:.::"::".:. ·::<::: ::.:::::"::: .. : .: .:: .. ::.:: ::::
. . .. . . .. . .,.••• the.
. .. . . . . . ..
:::·:':>
.. . .. . .. . . .
< :::::·;::._ <:.::::·:··;::: ::::·_:::·.::.::.:.
. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:· :: ::::-.:::::·: :::::: ::::·::.:: :::-::· ::-: :: :: :: :::·: ::· .::: ::
. . .. .. . .
Detendaht·challertg��·tlte··�t1fficiehhYarici.•Weight.ofth6.cvidbrice, • Js•,uellas•.tfus,··
.. :-:. :_::::;:::····:::/·.:::· :::·::::::/: :: :::.:::·:: :::::::.:::'.:.::: :::::-:::-:::::"::::::: -:::·::·::·:;:: ::·;:::::<:::.:.::: ::::: :.:: :: .. _::. ··.
court's.• ctecisio11 of denying t1te. l)eteridant's • �<>tio11. to. •suppress.·
:: .:· . . . . . . . .. ...
.. . .. .. ;·· .·::· ·::· ·:: ::· ··:· ·····:: ·::····:: ..... :: .· : .. :. : . ·:
: .. .: ·:. :-: :: ::: .: :: :: ..: ::- ··. :: .: ..... .. : .... ·. : ...
. The oeieridPrit ¥s$erts �at
. '.. • not supported 1?.f
. the ver�ic:t waa . . .. . . . . .. . .. .
sumclerit eviden:ce because the dornlllonweattli fa.nb,i to /prove 111at the
.I)efenda11t•··constructively.possessed .• th.e •• f�t1tar1yl •• that·w�s·· recoveredi•rrC>JXl • the •.
the. vehitle .••• I)efeµctijnt'$. aS$�t.tiop lack merit.••
. . .. .. . .. . . ' : ::::.::.:: : .. : :: . :: : .. :
• .mside: of th�: tl"Uilk 0£
:·· :::·::. · .. : : :::··:· ··:··: .: ... : .... '. :: ... :: ::·· ·:· ::.:·;·:·:: :·:: :··: ·:·:::· .: .. :·:· ::·:····::::. :.: :· : .. :·· ·. ::::·.::.: .. :.· .. :::: :· ;,
•·•••A• .clailn. chajl¢ngin� • the.stifti�iericy. of the• e\1de11ce ••is. •a•. �ues�ort • of i
:·: ·:·:. :. ::· ..'. :: ::: : :: ::·::·::-: ::::::.::: �:::::::::: :::::::-.: ·:::·::::·:·,:;"-::::<:::;:; :::.::::. ::::
... :; ::· :::·:: :·:::: ::·:::::: ::: .; :: ·::: .. :::::::::. ::: .:: :":
law. which .. a.sserts:. that •• tlier� j§ •. iri�ilfficiept •. e\Tid�IlCC •• to .• s�PpOrt • at • least • Orie ••
:::: .. : .: ::: ·: .:: .::,-:,.::: ::,: ::: ::::::::: >:::<:(· :::::::.:::;):.::::::::: ::·::::::::::::::::: .:(;:::·::::::: :::: ·:::::: ::>:/ ·:/·::: ::.:: ::: .: .. :::< :::::(:::·:::.
II1ateria} • eleme11t • • •. <>f · • th�•••• C:t'ittle •.• for• whic:li • .•the • • • [)efelldflllt • • • vvas • ¢br1'Victed .
.. :··: .... :;::::·:::::·: ::: .:::.:: ::··::·//::::: :::::·.::.:::.::'. :::::::::·:::> :;·:· . ···-::;:: : ::: ··::::. ···::···::·:·). : :::·:::· ::: ::::. : : :
Co111111onW�alth y, t&s¥s, 8'33 A.2cl fa4s, 258 (fa. S#p�r .• 2003};
····:· .:':. ·:: :: :.::·:.: .. :: :::::.:::::::::::::·.::.·:::·.:::·.:::·. :::.::: :: .. :::: .: ::: :: :::::>:-.:::: ::: ::·:-:·::: ·'":::::::-:·: :: :::: .": : ·:::::: :: .. .: .::·::.::· :::· ::: "::::·::: .. :·::: .:·.
The startdard••
:•:for •. r¢viewin�·. stifliciency··�llallellges. w-a�·. e�pla.inect•• irl .•th¢. foll�Win�·· rita�ner••by·· · .•
. :: ;,::·.:··:::. ::<: :::;;: . ::<.:::::::::::::::::<>.:::: _:(··: ::-::· ·::::::···::
t1ie Superio#ccrcirt'of Pe11nsy1va11ia:
• . · · .r::··:��i:::• r:••:,i�: r:n�g·.·��··.;q:��:�::•• .
:··::::.:::::: :::·::::·::::: ::::: :::::: :::::·:::;:::::::::: ::::.::: >>· /:::·::::::::;;;·;:; ::::·: ::·:: ::<:-::: ::: ;:. ;::: ::·:::.:: .: :.::·:·: .
a.t .•
. • a.dtrlitted •• trial. iri •• the •. light. Iliost. f�vorable . to •• the •..
• • • \rerd.ic{ VI.inner, • th¢re • is. sufficient. evi�ence •.·to .. enable •.••
. • •.t�yo[:-Jtift!f��n1bi�i�ut>'t?'•• elernertt·•• of • the•••crirn�• •
> •·•••••• ••••••••• ••• • . • . > . jJ
COJntl'LO!i\VeiIDJ•· 'V ·. Ta1rldr�··· &Si··· f\.•2<1 •• 66l,. 6�3·· ,P�·· · Sup�r ...• 2()03)., •••. quc,tirig···· ·
.... .•.• ..•.••. '. >
1 .
•cornrnori�ealth.0.• t>is'.tef@n0,.1782}E2'1574,.• s.ad•(Pa;··s�p�r.• 2001)l···ln.addition:, .•••
· the····facts·· ·and····ctcun1sttces···es4bus�eci····by .•.• tlle•·•·(Jorrunonwealth•••need·· · �ot····· · ·· ··· · · ·
• prec1Uc1e • etery • possibility••or.innc>qell�e.. • • • cJznri16�we.�t�··v···Hu�zn,•• a��•• Pi·2.d• • •
.. , ·:::::.: :::.::.:·:::::.:.: :. :· ::··.·;::··::··"· ::: ;::.:: .::: : .. :.:::::·:::: ·:::.: :·.:::::::::::.::.::: ::· .·.:.:. ::.::· :·:·· :::::.::::::: .:: .::: .. :: ..
498, •• sos • (F'a.••• Sµper. : • 2obs) ·•.. • • A:ny. i doupt( 1}g�l"C1PJ.g . a. defehdan..1:'$ •• guilt aie • .
properly •. •res61Ved··• by •• the:••finder·• of •:ract• .• uilless•·•t1i�•• evidence•• is•·• so·• te�·· alla••··•·•••
• 1nco�ch1slve • that,. •as • a• ·�ktter .• of. law,. rid. probability.<>£ •rlpt • rn�y. bb .• ctfawn •• frofu •.•••••..
•. the ••cotnbineci •• circun1stances .••.• ld.·.·· Finally; •• the . .•.PaSsit1g.upon•�· .•. .•.
trie.t·of·fact;•while
··:····:· .. .:::· > ::. ::: . :: ::: :.·: .. ::-: :-::-:.::.:: :::·.::: :::: .:··:>:::: _::.: :::·.::.:::::: ::.::· ::· :::::·::: ::::::::-:::::·:: ··: :· :· :.:: :. ::. : : :: : .. :: ::- .::: :-:::::·:::::::.::::·:::
•: the• crectibility • of .witnesses • and·· the. Weigijt• of ••the ••e.;dence. prodticea,••: .:: is.free
··;:: ::· ·::· .. ::: ::: ::> :-:: ·:: :;: :: :: .. ;·;: :: .::.:::: ;:: .. :: :::;; .. ::; .. ::.:: :::·· :: .. :: .:.: .... :: ... :. : ... :· ... ; .. ;:;;.:·· : :· :::: ::: .·: .:::: ::·:· -; :; :
.tt• ·
-:: .:: ;:; .. :;: .. ::: ::;· ;
• • believe a1I, part or r1011.e of the eviden.e<�;. Id .• lf the find�r· of fact r�asonab.ly •
. : . couid h��C&eteim�:J:� rr�tri: .tlie• eJi4�119ei• �aauce�! t:1i�fa1t or· thb heiessajj, .••.
··.:. elenients of tl,;e)ffiirj� wet�)esi�biisflec( t��µ; th/ 1evid.etjce will ,t,e .. deem�d
c.aul"triote� that th¥ o�r�hc1aht. wairou11c1•guitty or
±�,� •
.··. lrtitit#l:v;&i$
.: J>ossessie>n of:c1. Coritrpllecl S\lb�t�c.� / 'ci1111.e • 1S ci�fn.1eci·,s. "lk)np'Viri$lf • qr:··•· ·
interitionanY:P:?S�¢�s�g�Conttolled b{b6ut1terleit �u.b:�tarice by:S. persp6.'not .•.
regi$teted,ti.rtd¢t :this·:a1ci; ()r J1,f�c�tj9.11�r:::11d,t t�gi�te��ij ()t_•tfo�nsed 1:>ytlie.
·::· apprdprlate. St�t� bbtij-d, • q�l¢s� the JJbstlfu¢�•w�s· &btaiiied.jijrec�ly .fre>t11,; Qr·'·
pursuant to; � v�ici pre�¢riptie>ll ordef<>r e>rd�r of a �r�ctitfoner/pr excie,pt as ., .
. • e>therwis� �\lth6�d :• 'by·· tlli$•. •act.;,•••••• 3=5 •• ls.:: • §7�0-ll:3•te.)(16) •. . ': The�eforej·• tli�··.•.: . ; .
· . ·. the··· I)e(eIIdahi s:•'!•p6i�()D;··· ·��· · ·66111�()riWea1th·· ·:ijJ#··:· u• • .• J)rdt�· · ·con1str\lCJV,e•r• ····:•
1
possessibn. • Cor11#i�nweaitb "· Kit:ktand, • s31 A�.�ci -�97·, 610 (Pa� $u.p#f. • 2qpa)} • .
. C9JlWlOilVJe�th V· Avilc:s; �1.9 Pa'. Sttp:er. �45,915. J\:.2d �-Q�� 4()1 ,(199:�);
co1rifrtoti\\i�9lih. :yL Mµctri#k, S� :
"C<>nstriidtive.••• �6si�:�$�i:oh:••r�ciun-e�• • htodr. •of• t�e•• a�ititi• :fQ·•• ei�rcis¢i : •. c:6J�bi��s . • • · • · ·
. . •• doft��. '.:,pitpµin��ail¢e.s: �d.• . �a.Y.:; ·1,le J>r9;8�:: �{ . : · · ·
.•. ' t:irtUn1$tan:1� e'li�eride;' .Ca1'riirio#��ru#r'tJ·:a��(322 F�. ��pbr/ �7:, 469 A.2�(:·· · •..••.
. . : . : ...
.: .. ·• .••••• •••·••• •...•.. > .•.
. •.• <•• ....•.••... ) .f • • • . . ·
•. 692 A2d• 563'(1997').•• ••·rn. a.dditie>ri,· a.pet$�#.i$.gttilty �f
. . .. .. . ... . .. . . . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .
Possesslbn.v.ritfl• .. . ..
. 1htbr,f · ··
.. . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . . .. .. .....
•·to··oeliver .• J •.Controlled••sµbstance •• \mdet·35 .• P.$ ..• §.7�0-1t$(a)(30)··�·he •• d�livers
1••··
:·· : .: -: :;:. .::: ·:· :: ::":: .. : .. ::: .. : ... .: :::·:: ::::: :-: ": ·.:: .·:·: .. ·;:· :> :. ::-:::::: ::: .. ::::::.: ... : :. ::"::: .. :: ·::::. -:: .. ::.::: ..' .. :<:· ·:: .:.:: .:::::::
Jr••poss�sses •• with •• the.•irlterit •• to •• deliver,•.•a••cohtfolled·.·s�9stfA!lce, •. aild. he •• i�··n()t •••.
·.. -: : ... :.: ... :.: .:. :: .. : : :: -: ::·:: -: -:": ... : ... ::··::: :: ·::· .. ::. ··:·· .: ::·. -: .. · :: :· .. :· :: :· .. ::·::· .. ·::.:: :. : .. -: ·. ::·::. .::
registered • hncier• this •• act•• o.r·•licen�ed •• by • tlie •.• appropri,Je• •• St�te•••ijoai-µ,•• or •• he····
a .•
. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . .. . . .
ktlowillgly. •6reates,• •delivers.• br • possesses \Vith. the •• i#t�nt. to . de¥ver I cbunterfeit •••• •
I:);:.:.::::: .... :: :: .:. :-:: . :: ·>: ·::·:::: :::::.::: .. ..'
. controlled $ulJstarice.
:·i:::
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). 'l'l,le QOIJl!Il.O#wealtll s�stailie�
••its.burden.··
: .. :.·:: ... : :: :. :: ." ::: ::· .::· :::· ·:: :>:: ::·· ..' ::: .: :: ·.: ·::::. :: .:.::::.: :::.::· ... i.. :::"- ::: ·::· ·:::·.;::.: ::·: -: .. ·:-:·::
]11 tb.e fristart(case, the eviq.e11ce estplJlislled that orl ()cte>ber 4 1 •
. . :· :: :: ::-:: ·:·-:::::::.::.::;;::. :;": :'.:·:::·.:;·· ::: .;·::::::: :: .: :.::::::.::::: :::: ::::::: !\::··:::- .: :··:: .. ·; .t.: .. ::·.:::: :::::. :: ::··::· ::.:::::·: __
•· 2017,. at• appr�,dfuatety• 4:4o·• P.N1., .• Troopef :$�art••,brtopka•of the.•Pennsylvan.ia.
... ·:·: ,:: ::·::::::::.:::.·:·:·:··:::: ... :::::-: .. ::.:: :: .... :·· :·:::·.:: :·: ::·:. :: :::. -: ·:::-::·.::::: ::. ·::: ::.:::.:: .. . . .: :. :· <:: : -: ... :·.· .: : .. :.::···: :
· State Police, Fogel&\rille BcU'l"a.bk�· Was J)a.tre>llipg ill the �areJ ot lnierste.te 7tJ west·
. . . .. .. .. .
:.:: :. .:": ;.::::. ·::: ·: ·.::.:: .. :.: .. : .:. :· :: : : :: : .. : :: : : .. ::. ::: ·::: ::: ··: ::.: : : .. :.·::.·:: .
•:· 1n• .Alle11to�, •.HPper .• §aucor1 • 'I'o�ship, •• Lehig�:•c�;u1ty • Pennsylvflllia. •. • Troop;r
:. :· :·:. :;:: :· :.·::: ·:::: ·:· ;. :::":: :::.:::::::.:.:::·.::·.·::·::::. ::·· ::::·:::· :::::::: ::· :::: :::.:::::=:: .·::;-::.:: :.::: .. ::.::.: .. : :·.:::.::: .::.::: .·::-- .: :·.· ::: ·: ··::: : ... :.::: ...
Konopka. wa� J>afrollirLg in a 111�ked yellicle· a.ncl iri Iµll #lliforin; • ••·'l'roope,(•••
ttijv�ling Uie center J8l1.e Jf travel. at
.
.. Kon.opka Ob$ertted a • �ilver Chevroletcruz¢
.............................. , , ,., •' .
. . .. .. .····· .. ,. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .
:·:··:·): ::···
.
I •. . .
:
.. .. :::. ::· .:.·: ::: .. : ·::·.· ::. :.:::::: :: ::.:._. ·:: ·.:.·::::· ::: ::·::·:: ::.:: : .. :: ::::: .. ·:::: : .. :·:.: :·: :·::· :: ·::··:: ··: ··::.:: .
. a ...vefy
:: ·
•• sl<>W
:.:.::·:
•. rate•• •.e>f .speed,•:•·:::::::::::::
·::.::.·: :·:-:. ::· :: ::
iherebi .traffic.s···· .Troqp�r.·········
• illlpeciiri�·· thf • flov.r·· of
::::::::.::::: ::···:::·::::: :::.::: ::: :: ·:::::· ;.; :.:. -:: ::.: :: ::: ·::::::::.::>:::::·::·::, ::::::·· ::: : ·::
• Konopka.fe11. proc:efded. to• follow. tl1e. subJect ·v�hi71e .••.• DBririg • thisiinterv�,· �e·· · •.
• vehi�les••speed.Jnfre�s�d •• sub·st�tially.·· · I#·f�Qt,•·�ooper • Konopka..•clocke�•·tije·· •
... ··:·: ::· .. :::·: :. ::.· .:. :::::: .. :: .. : .. ::.: .. :.::.::.:: .::· .. :: ·.: .... :: .. :::. :::::··::.:: ·::.·:: ::.:: ·:;··· :···;:::::::·:·;:·· ·:·· ::.:::: ::: :: :: .... :.:.:: ·::: ·::: .. : .: .. ::::::::· ... :.:::::·:
at 68 rtlph 111 a po�ted 55 ti11>,h zd11e.
·
vehicle at tra.veling Trbdp#l" •• 'Fhet¢fore, i
.. :.::: ::· : :::·.::.:: .:::·::: ::"<} :: )·.]:}:::·:::· ::: <::-:::- ·::-.·"' ··::-:/.::-:::::::::.::::::-:::::::::::::::>.\:::\:::·::--.:: }·::: :: :>>· :::::::::-:::::::::: : : ·:::::::::::
•:K..onopka • initillt¢d •. a.tr#�c • stop • b11··I·78··�estlloun.�1··t_!ea.r.t11ile··�arl(er • !5'7.7 •. (¢···
. · .. · . ... .. ·::::.::: ::::::< :: :: ::: .:: .:::- ::: ::: .::.·::: .. :: .:::::::::.:: :::::: :: :··: ·:"::··-<:::·:::::::::::.:.: ::·.::.'. ::--:: ::: ::::·· ::.:: .. ·:::":":::··::::·:::··::
. ·E�. 2)... There •• v.rere t\vo.•(2} •• inal¢ ••
.... . :.::. .::.:: ·:·::· ... .. . . ········· .
d¢dtip'il1t�· in·· tl)e •• supject .itehitle ••• •·. Troop_er·.
:: :.:: :::::_::·:.:·:-:: :::::::: ::. ·::-:::::·.::.::.:·.::.· ·::::·::<:::·:::::. ··.: .. ··.· :: : .:· .. : ..... : :: :: .. · ... :: .. :·. : .. :. ·:·· .... ::· :·:: .. :: :·· .:
'•
• •Konc>pka•• •approa.cbed·· · the ••.• pa.ssenget• • sicle••· of • • thr ·•vehlcle··· alld·· .·irn�ediat�y·. .
. . . ... ::·':. :· .. :·:·:· ·::· ·::· :;: :::·: :::::·:: :::··::.·:·.:::::: .. : .:: ··:· :-:·::·: ·:···::::.::.:::: ::.::: ::. :::-: .. ::. ::::":::::: :·::·. ·::
.... d •. ·t··· ..t.
··•· . e ec. e ... ••a•···•·tr • ••••>> sme
s ong ·d·.·•· ··••••·1·1· ·· •·••f
o ··•· ·ravv
• ••· ·••· Inar1Juana
• · ·· ·· .;•. ·· · ·•· ••·•· ··· e
·.•. ·· an
.... •. ····
..m
·.·· ·
·.· .tiri
· •.·.··• ·
g
····
f··r.·.o.··.. ·•m
·• ·
·•····t·h ·· · ·e··.· ·· • v
··e·h
··..· ·1··e.. •·..•••·•.• •••.
·
1·.c
·· · ••1•n
· ·•. ··
..
.
..
..
··.
.
.
.
.
.. •.. ·. . ·.···.•. · ·
.
•.
., ••.·. · ••
·•.
·
..
.
•.. .. •. .. •. •. • •• • •.
..
.
.
.
..
.
r..
.
..�
•
. ·.
.. •.
.
.
.
..
. .
..
..
..
.
..
.
.
additiori,.there.\\'ere • 11\ltrlCl'OtlS •• §ltiC*•tte#-sRa.p¢d • air'freshetters.throUgh<>.Ut•u.ic•···
·;:::. ::.·:.::: .. : .::: .... ::::.::::.·:::::::::::·::.::::: ... : .. : .: .. ·.: ... : ... : ... ::: .... :: .. :::.: .... : ... ::.:::: .. :: ::.:: ... ::.:: :::::::· .. ::::: ;:·::: ·:::·:· .:: ::·:·····::·:::· ·:.:: ::::. ::.:::.:::::::·:· .. : .. : · ..
..... ::: ·< ::::·:::::::<::·:::<·::<:>: :-<:>:::>::>:<:::::-:::·::::::::::::::: ::- :::�::::::::::::: .: .. :;:·.::.::-:::::::::::::::·::: ::.:::: ::.:::: :: ::-::: /: )::·::;:::: ::;:: ::::: :::::::
..
•... o(;)p. er Kon
Tr.· . o.pa
The oaeridant \\18.S traveling approximately 40 rripffin � posted SS rilph zone; ..
· ·.k· •·fi..a· ·d• coc
·1· .. k.ed··t
.. h· ..e. •o· ·"'£ •t'sspee
.. el,nL4an. \ • •· •· •d · ·w1, •·•• v,e h'1ce,.as
. •'th••his
. ••�•1•1ov/d
T • . ••h.e•• .,o e • ·••,ye•
tk ·••·••·•
at ··:.i: ••
. vehicle • •for.•• .3 . •miles••• 'llSit1g • •. llfo • • • spe�donteter. • on••• hi� •,police·•• vehicle .. •••••• Qf . note. • the •·• • ·
speedonieter on the poli¢e crti.iset ha.d been. tested for accuracy and certified !,}' .
Rabold 's • s�rvices,.
Ehilletin § 2589)ori :Jµl.Yl3, 2017/
an
approved• riiairiteriari.ce .a.rid• ca.libra.tion f0:cility pursuant to• 44, Pp..••••.•·•· · · · · · · ···· · ·· · ·· · · · ·· ···· ·· ·· ······ · · ·· ·· ·· · ·· ··· ···· ··· ·· ··· ·· ···· ··· ·· ··
: . ::.. . .:.: ::: ;::· :::::·;;·::: .. :::: . :·:. :·:·(: . :
.Trooper ••Kortoplcket. containin�· a • ri�t·
·Srnall••afuounf •. of •. susiected.'I11arijuana .•••••• At••tt11s••tuTlJt •. Trooper • Konopia···to•ok .
.
possessio�
and•requestea:�at.the.passepger.exit.the.ve�icle .• • .•.
of the·��Juana ••
. . .. · · ·· · ·····aa�ed. oh his• tr;Jirlg•;� bJ�erience,:�s·;b11. �s·h1s• ob•s•ervtttio�s ••.
· ·ana•· the •.• circuin�tarices•·• ·•surrounding•.• tJ�•• •VehicJb•:• •stbp,•·!·•Trsoper·· l,otlo�a···
•coriducted a search ·of llle· vellicle .•• •As. aife�illt. of ·t�is. �e�ch;··Trooper•Konop�,·.
••
located •• a •• black. pIJstic •• gr()cery-style •• bag .�ext •• to. •the. spare •• tire.In .• tlle···ttunk,of._•.
•the• vehfcle.·•Upon! ••openlng.the • bag ••• Trooper.Konopka···located •• a •• c1ear • air-dg�t••••.•
Vacuurn-p�cl >••• artd• ··• ·all•.
. . •. evidence • ·• • •• reas�naple
· > ·•••· ·••·. ·. i�ferences
•
therefrom.in.the.light mosf.favorable •• to.the.Co.rnrn�>ntve�th,.•it.is.clear•that•the.
evidence was sufficient to e�able {f111cter oL fact to cortclude that alL�e
• �eyond.
elements · of .tlle •. offe11�es . \Vere. established a. re,.sonable ; doubt. • • Indeed, 1
at the. conclusion.of the.bencJ·trial, .thi�· c�Jrt.•had. no· doubt.that• the.1Jefe11clant. •
constrttctively.pQssesJed.the
... ..
.• .. .
Jentanyl, • and• that.he·posse.ssed.It.with.the.• intent.
: ···:: ·.· .. :
to deliver it.
.. : ..... :: . : : . . : . : . . : . ::: . <: : : . : : : : .: . : : .. : : : . . ... : : . . ::: : ; : ; : : : :
Challenging •the Weight .of .the·. Evicie11ce •••• · • •. • • • • .. ·
•••.••·····The
••
Defendant·hl�o·alleges.that.�he·v��dict.was •. against•thb·w�ight.
er the .evidence, •••• as ••• the •• qommonwealth ••• did··· not • • pr�ove·· ·thEtt·· the ••• Defendant i
. constructively···possessed···the·••reritanyl··· that•• was • locate�··in·· the··· trunk·· of • the·�· .
••• vehicle.••••• T�is •• Court.notes • that •. a[.II1otiQn •• for •. a.ne�•ir11,1••on.,grounds···tha.t • the·····
• •. • .vercli¢t. ls• contrarj>" •to• the. weight• of the. e�560 Pa. 308, 319, 744 A.2d 745, 751
.. :·· -: ·:::· :· ·:··:·· . : : -: : : : ::.:. :: .: :: :··· :·· :· :: : :: : :· -: -. :�·,:
(2Qoon .• • CgIIIIrlOn�ea1th . • v .• • eeu1lett1··· 827 .•• A.2d •. 469, • • 1�1·· · (Pa ••••.• super'. • • 200�)··
·:· ·:·· :::: :· :·
.:
.··· .
,.
. Furthermore, •. a.challeJge·.•
that•�e.verdict.is.agai11�t••th�·Weigbt.of
. the···eviden9ei
.••••.•• requires.this.• Co11;t.to .soncl\lde . in. it�••aiscretiori.th�t· "th�··verdict·iS •• so. contrapt····
.·•to •• the•. eviclence··�s.'. to•• �riQCk •• 011e J··�erise • of •Jtistice.' ��ns 83�··· A.2d •. �t· 2$8 .• •••••
1 1• ••• 1 ••
::·::: .. ::·:·::::·:. :·· ::.:<<:;::-:.;::,:·::-·::.:::·>::·.;/::::: ::: ::>.::::::.::·:·-:::::>:::::·::<:·;:):::::.:::·::· :<: \ :(::::::·:·::::::::: ·:) ::::.:::::::::_::: ::·:::: :::::::::::;:: :::
• Indeed,
: : :
. for• a-: new: trial• to lie::: on• a:::.challenge.
·. ·: ·· .. ·: .... .::::::
·:·.::: ·: :: :::::::·:
that the verdict is•
.:. ." :::·:,.::
::: .·. ::·
against
:: ::::.
:: _
..
the weight,
·.: ::.: :.::::: :::.::::::·
:' ::· ·:'·:'.: ::::::: .: .. ·::
of.the.evidence,.t1ie•e\ficlen¢�•rnµst•be•s.d•teri11olls;•Y�gt1e.anci•uncerta1nthat•the
hlo irott�JfJfutt=t���ffh��:iwitta�m�lt1N�i; ph�·· Oh,
.. ....
.. .. . . ..
. ..
: .:: : ': :: ··:: ::-::.:: ::::. : . :\·\ ::· .. .. . :: -: ..
.:: . ::: ::: . :: .. :: : ::: < .::::: .:· .. .. -: :
verdict shotks the c¢rtscience of the .coiirt.li Cornrnon\ll/ealth v. Shaffe,r, 722
. : : :· ": . ;: .: : ; . :: .::: .. ·:::: .. . ..:: .: ·:: -i.: : : .: .. ::: ::· :::: ::: ::: .. :
A�2d··l�s,•2oq.(Pa.• Supet;• l:998l,· see•also.�Olllfll91"'ept�•�. •
·:· :�.(: ..'.". ::.·::_:;:·.::,:::: ::;<: .:: ::: .. :: :::::.:::::.:: . :::·:;::>: ·:::;;-:.::T.:::.:?:::::·::::::-::r:·T:.·: .: :;'. ::.;>:'.·::.:.:::: :::;::·�:::;; .. :: ::::·::: :
§tjlliv¥1••8�Q·A,�d·�·.
'795, 806 (Pa. Super. 2p03). . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . .
i: :::·:··:: .. :: : ::::.:.
<
.::··::::·::
. FrQrn the . evidence
recou11ted a.hove, it i� rea.sort�blf to
· ·. · . . .: :.: :·: :: :: :::· .. :.:: .:. : . ··<: :::·:··:: :: .. :: : .::::: ::··:::::<
. conc1uctect • that· the• Oer�nda11t •wa� • ��••1ndhtic1ua1· •W;bo • · c:dµstructively • Possessed
: . . ·.· :: ::: ::.· .. :: .. .: ..... :· .. :·.:· :;· :·· ·:·:· :: ::::. :.: .: :::.::::. :.... : :·::·: .· .. :: ::. ·.: .:· ..... :·· .:·:· ...
. ..: :· ... :::· ·: ·:: .. :: :·:: ;; ::: ·I::::.:::::::···:::'.::::<:·:::::::; ·::-:·-::·:: ::;-::.·::::::::::;:::::::.::: ::·::: . ::;; :·:·::. ::: ::·:::::.: .
. • thefe�tcu1yl,. arid.that �e pos$e�•sed· i.t�th tl)e• 111tenttQ•d,eliver
... . .. .. �
.. .. ..
.• lt. ••Accdr.ti(>fi that
this· Court·· �fred·· ill·· ·den�ng•.the·· Defend�t·s ·0Il1tlibu.s . . 1Pretrial···Motion .•
�an11ot agree. Wit11 •.the.• betendarit's. El$��rtion .•.•. • • • • • • •: .....
:-I:::_.;:::.::::\/) J: .. :::·:.: ::: :>::: :'.: :((::\_/;!)>! <:)-:\<:i)(:(!l ·: : ti': ?T >:::::.) . \:: :;::_::<:(/:.:\:: ::::'.:::::
. • . Initially wi riote •• t.hflt ElI1 investigative Aetert.tion • subj�ct$ •• a person�
ancl. a. pe�iod • of aetention�. llut. it do.es. 11ot iriy<>lye. coerchre. con4itioris .•
. : . ::; :;;· .:: .:'. ·:::::::":>:::.·::·::· .::·:··· :::: :: ; :::.::.:: .. : . :;_::: :::: :;;::: :::::. ::>!:.: :: .::i:: . : :::;::: ::: .::. :; :: ::; ::: ::::·-:::::<:. ::: :::::. :::I· :I: ·:. ·
• to a stop ••
: ... : ; .: : . : : '. : : : : : . : : : : : <:::: : : .: : : : . : ; : ; : . : ; : . : ; ; : : : . : : : : . . ... : : : . : :: :':::. : .. : : : : : ; : : : : . : : : :: : ::: : : . : : . : ; :: : . ::: : : : . : : : . : : .: . : : : : . : : : : . : : : :: . : . : : . : : : : ; : : ; : ; : ; �;::: : : : : : : : : : : : : . : : : : .: : . : : : .. : :
• · • qoifiiile>�wea1t11•"··· !c��t#fln,•·.f 64• •A.2�. 595, •• 998 • (P�·••·�uper .• •2oop) •.•.• Iri • orc1e.t .tc··· •
. : ;"· ::; ·:·:: ·:::::: .. ::: :'..:'. .. '.: .. :: :.::·::·::::·::: :::···:: :::· ::·· :::::: ·:· :·.:::::: .:::.::. ::.: ... ·::::.::.::::·.·.·, :·::·:··:.::·::.::.: .:.'.:: .::.:: .·.:· ··. : ... ·::· .:: ..... : : ... :
· ·j: ..tistify• • ·•thel·· .·reisb.'ai#f .•.• lonl•l••1iberty •.• in1posed.•1• 1,y:1.:•:a::.::.::::::::::::·:>:.:-::·::
.n�•li#v�sti�ative• ·• •sto�,··••W-�•••·•
• investiga#ng c,ff.iqer mu st betv�. a. tc:�$e>�a.t)1� • belie{ �at. tlie: pers pn • c1�t�t1ect. has·.·•.
... : .. :::. : ... : .:: ':":.:::: <:<: ::<>:: :::·:::··::.::·.:::. ::: ::::.::·.::::>>: .. ::· :: :·_::::::-:··>:·::::>>:::·>: .. :::: ::: .. ::::.:::·:::.:::>:: ::::::· ::::::::<::-:::
. .. . . . . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . . .. . ":···: : .. : .. :·: : :·:··:·::·: .. :· :·:·: :·::·:· :·:·:::...,i.::::·· ···.· :·� .:·.
. .• b�eh. involved. hi critni.n� �ctivitY·· · ·Carryn9tlW.�alt9··\< $e�nett,. s21•.• A,2d 46Q, ••••••
··:· ·:· .. ;··.·:· ::: .. ::· :::·:::: :: .:··:: ·::.::: :: ::.· ::::.::·::::.::: ·::· :·· ·:·:; :;: .;·:: .::::.::·.:::·.::.:::::: .. :.::'.:: :.:.:::.::.::::: :.::: .. :· :: ::: :::::·: : .. :.::: .:.:::: .. :·:: ::::·.: .
: : :-::: .::: :::·:;.;::: :/::::· >::·.::-:::::::"::::.:·):: :<: > ::.:;:<:;:.·:::::::::::::-;::·:::::>::::::;::::>:>·>:)_·::: '}:.: ;:;: ... : .. ::>:: ::.<:::::: ::::·:::: .\::.:<·:::: .:::<
••477•(P.a•super... �0.0(,Fl••1'o.iests.blish•grour1qs.•f<>r.re��o11a.b�e•susp�cio11,.the.po1i�?•.•• •
:· : .. :.:: ·:::: ··:: .. :: :··<· ;:.;:: :: ·::: ::':::· .. :: ·.:::_.:::·::: :::·. ::.::::::: :::::::::::"::"-::::::::-:::: :::·:::- .. :-:::::· ::::-:::: ... :. :.,::· :: :·::::: .:.::. ::::.:::::. :·:
\Vhi�.h ···i#···�O!}jUnption···witlt•·1reasone.1J.te..•
1llUSt .•. lU°t.icu}ate· •. specifi¢ •• Obs�.rvatiQ�S .•
1
inferenc¢s · derive�• frotn ••those .o§s�i-Jatip11s,· �e.d • th�tri ·r�a�oiiagly •to •• conclud¢, ••in··••• .
... . . .. .. .. . . , .. , , ,. . . . . . .. . . .
· .light • of.U1eff·;�Xp�ri¢n,�e; •. thaf•¢ri!l1111al•·acti�tY • VlaS·· af'op�··ancl••th�t··th�··person'., ••
was •. involved·in··that • activity�:······C.g111rnon�e@Itll.v..• �ilsor1�·•440·· Pa.•.• sup�r. • 269�··
. . , ······ . .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .
. • .• 921···A.24·.··2rg•• .(2007)t•.• •appea1•·.g,a11ted,···54a .• i�.• •1�09,•• •673·· A·2c1···8t>4••·(199�),•.•·· · ..... :.:.:: ::: .. :
........ .. : .:: .
A.2d $.(477; �rt.i,e J.V., 762 A.2ct
,. ,.,
827 3765 . 3'79-3�0JPa.. Super.
9·
: ::'.: ·) : :. ;;::::.:::-:::: ::.::.:.:::::.:: :< :;;:·;:· :;::: . ··:::::.::::: -: .
· burden .. 1 B;erinett, 827 A.2da.t 478 ..
. ;:·;·\ ·::I·.::<:- ... ::/-::::):. : :::::··:('.::: :: .:.T'. >I:;;)::::.:::-::_[: i::i.iii:i): ·::· ·: \:. ·::'. -: ·<
•• J\dditfonally, •• genercilly, ••for••an•::·.:::arrest. lto.'be••1awr�1, .• it rnust.occµr
:: .. -. .· ::.-:: ... : .. : :-:· ::.:: :-:·-·:· . ·.:::. :::·:·:·.:: :: .:.·: ..
·:: ::::: ·::.: >" :: .. ::·:::· '"·: -: -: :::· ... :::: . :: .. ::.: ...
pUtSUallt. to a. wfu.railf; •.•• Iiojrevet, • a. 'Wal'rantlbss al'[e$t. i� • constitutionally Valid.: .:
. .: ::::·::.::::. ···: :::· ·: :::: ::::: ·:· :::··::· .::.·.:: .i.!.": ... ·::.::.. :: .. :::: ". ::· ··:. ': . :.: :: · .. :: ... ::: .'.".". :: '":':>
• under • the •. Fourth • ;\1r1endntent • to.• tli¢ •. l.Jriited •• St��es · •. C911stitutior1 • when .. it .i�
. .. .. . . .. . . . ::·:::·· :. :.· . . . . . . . .. :: · .. :"::.:··. :: :. :.·:· .: ·:· ::: .: .. :· : ..
• supporteti •• by•. },rob9.ble •. ca�sb.•·• • • Q2rn�o�9!egllh. ·v··· s§lt;t1$#, •. •4s4·· •Pa 21.l, •• 398
..••
: : : : : : . : : . ::: : . : : .. : . : .. : : : : : . : : . :: . � . : : :� :':':
• ot••w�etll�r···P.t-e>�Jble•·•ca.use·· eldsts••to
... : . : .: .. : . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . " "...... . . . . . . . . . . ' . :: : : ".... . . .. . . ".. . . . . . . .
• · ·A.2d•.• l0t9····(�979)'.···· T11e•.deterrnutaµ0Il
. :.:' ': :>::- :: .: .. :···:: :-:::· ::::: .: :::":::· ::·. :::· :::::: :: . ::. :::·: -. ·:: .. :::· ·::· -:: ::.: ::: .. .: .. ::: .. :
.: .. : :.: ..... : .. : .... ::: : :<:-:: .. :::- :: .' : :: .'. ::::::: ... .'". :::: ::
support •• a.war.raritle$s·· arr�st••1s·.• §as�d·•on•.• Ein• . evJb.1e.tj,o:n •• of•the • t()fality .• 6f•t1Jc
.. .. : ... ·:· -: ::. ": :: ::::: : ::_: .:: : .::; . : ·:. :: :: ::· ::: ::: :.· .::·. :;:: ::: :: .: .: ::: ::: :::: ::-::· :::::· :: :: :: :· :·· ::. :· :::::; ::: .:.::. ::: ::: .:: :: .. .;:; : ·:::: ·:::::. :: .. :: ·<:::
•. circuntstaiices Qbse?'Vijd. l>y. the offic�r ,Wll¢11 .1111;ld11g. the tlprest ClEtrk, .13 5. A.2{l •
.. . . : . :· :· .: .... ::.:::. :··.: .... : .. ·:. ·: .: ... : : ... '. .. : .·: .:.·:: ::···;·.:·. ·:.:: ·:.·: ... ·.:· ..... : .:·:·.·:· : : :: :::::::.: : ... :: .:· ···:···. ::. :::· ::.::: .. :.
a� .12s2t •.m§lfflr1()���···¥t f3aijijj, .••• S4()····#a.•..• 4?3,···· 6�8···· A.2ci·· .752·· · (J99S) •
-t� ·
. . ..... ::: .. :: .:· ..... : ······::.: .. ::: ::::: :::::: .:: . :: .. :: ::::· ·::·:·::·::":": : ..... : :: .. :. . ... :: :::.:::: ::. ::· ·:::: .... : .. ·:· :: .. :.: : .
speCmca111.•• �ttdet.••the•••tot iw••of .the···circfmst�ces.!•t�st,• • probable•• c,use•
4
preseilt. where • th� · facts • Efiid. • • bh-cumsta11ces • withirt • th¢ •• ofii:�er'$ • k:howled,ge. iarc .: ':
. . ... : ::.· .: ..... :.: ... :: . ::·' ·:. :·· :·::: .:::. :::: ...... ::::·.·:.·. ;·:·::· ·:;:·· ·::. ··::·:··: :: .. : .. ::.: :: ::··;··:: ·: .. ::· :: ... : ... :: .. · :··:··:::··:::·::·:·::: .. :
.sufficierit.to•\Vclrtanf·�··persc>n.of Ieaso11ttble .• Cautior1.in.th�·
. . . .
·��lief·that.llrt.offe�¢ .•.•
. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . ' .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .
ha.s. been • or•is.befug. co11111Utted.••.. lu.triois.v; • Cfate,s,. 4�2· U-$··· 213, • 103••.s.Qt.· �3[17· ·•· •
.
::.: .' ·:: .: :::· :· >·: :... . .. :·::. :·· _::'-::··:· ···: .. :::··:·::·:: :::·::·:::· :::· .. :.·:: ::.::::.::>.:·:··:: .:::·:.::·.:::::-- .:": .. .: ... :::· :·. ::·:: .: ...
(1983)•.• .•see'w�o.¢0Itirtl()rt\lleallli.v.•• Oibsori,[•sao·P�.··1�p,,.63.8 •• .A.2d·.•2oa,•.20.6•
.•.. · ••. •• ..•• .•• ••• . .•• .•••• •• •• . • • • ··••· •.•••.••. ••••••·• ••• ·•••••••••••••. • . . • .• ••• .••• ••••• ••• .••.. •••• .• ••. .•. •.•..• t. •••.. .•. ...• .• .• .••.. .• . .
(1994);• Call'lIIlQtl�eaJth.:v.••·.oenrli$, ·417 •• P�.·· $Upet .••. 42�;···429-430,.
: .. :::: .:.:: .. : .. ·:":: :·<<: :: :::: :: :::· :·
..... ··; :····· :·· ::::·::::·::.:.::: .. ·: ... : .. :
.....................
1014)]016(1992))
. :·· ·:· :·:: :::.: ::::.::: :".·::>:: .:. :->:· .: :::: ·::· ·::: : .. :.:. ::.: .::.:::::: ::··.::>::<:: ·:: :>::: :- ::::: :.::":: .. · ::: :: :" ::: ::· :: ::::.: ... : .::::::":
. . . .... (n th;eJnstfJJlt case,jhe tes�nionygres.en�ec\at the 1>retriaJ.hearirtg.
established •• tha.t.011!(:)ct<>ber4, •• 20l7,··�t·c1pproxim,t�1y·4:4Q.}:) .• �•.,•'l'ro0per.Bria11•• •
·Koriopka•.ofthc: . Petµt�ylv.��·�tate'.Poli¢�.•Fbg�l�vill�·B'1·l'�c�s····wa�··l'�trollirig.in•••••• ·
·the •. �ea•of.lnlerstate •• 7�··We'.st • in.J\llpttto\Vrt,·· bpl'ef··��tt CPn••ToVJlls1tip,·· �high .. •·•
1
Coun.�·Pennsy1vaniai· · Troop:er. Kbno1ka• was.patrol}m�·in!·�·trtarked. vehicle·��·
. . . . . . A law enfOl"(:e111¢11t ofiic�'s ElCttial sµbjectiye motiv3tio� iq e�ecuting a ktoP,. eve1.,1: if •.
. · •. pretextUal; • • i� • neverthele$f3 jt-releva,n:t if • sufficiet1t •. antecedent Justification•. is · 0 bjectively,;;. •
pre�ent, Wftr���·.,v.�,'['.Jn1tijfYStJjmr,·. 1H3 s.ct; t76? (l996}. • •... · · 1 ••····· .. . . . . ... . ..•
:·:: ;: :· ::: . : ·:·· ::: ::::.:.:::·:· ::: :: ::· .
. . . . . . : :. :;· ... ·::· .. ::· ::····:··::·.·::: ::·::·: ..
· •••·• ···•••· .. ···•••· 10•·····
::. ::·: .. ': ... ::.::> :>-:)·: .. ;::::· ·:: ;: .:::·:·::::: > .:: .: :··:·::·-: T. : . .. T :::>:-:
:·. ·:·
• Trooper • l{ortopi(a . opserved. ' silv�r • C�evr()let Cruze •• traveli�g •...
-; ::. :·: .. ·::.: :· ::·: ..' ·:· :·. ·::::: .. ·: ... :.:: .. ·:: ·::>: ::·:: ::<-::.:::::.. :·::-:·:·.::.;. .: :;:. :::.: ::.· .: .: .: :. : ... :::. ·.:::: .. :· ::: :::: : . ·.::
t11e •. center•1ane•ar•
....
tr.a.�e1••a.t•�·venr·s1ow.r*te•of
:·:·: :: .:: ::.·:: ·:: : ::· . ....
spebA;.t11ereby.i111��ding.the.�<>-w• .:
:: .. ... :: .:: ·:: ....
. of traffic.
. . .. :: :· :: :: ::: :. ... .. : . ·:· ·: .::·· :::
Trooper Kb11opka then. pr()ceecl�d to fo�ov( tlle subJ�ct\l�hi<:I�.
; :. -: : ::.:: >·: .\ :: .. :·::.:;: .;(::!: .. :: .. :::: :::::;;;::·;::.::::·::·:::::· -:<::.:: :: ;::::: .. :::'.:: ·:::: .·· :::.::: :: :::::: ::::
During thi$
·; ':
Jnterv�l the
:::.::·:::.::::::.:: :::::
··::: .:
1
• vehicles. sp�rici •• • incre��ed • substantfall)'.
::::·::: :::: ·. :::::::.::::::::::::· ::::·::'.::·::-::::::· ::: :: .:::::: :::::: ::::: .: .. ;· :: :: ·:::· ::: ::: .;:::: ;::-::":
ss• mph.
.. .... ..
Trooper Konopka.clqdl(edthe.Vehiole•it#aveling a(68.llip�·irl a.posted
. .. : : : : : .. ::.::.·:: :: : ·:.:: ::::: ::: :: : ::·:······:: .. >:·:;-:: ::::::· ":... .. ·:-::: :-:::: ::.:.::. ::.::. ::: .: ::: :::- .: : :
zone .. •·Th,erefore, •• Tr9oper .:l{onopkti •• ir1iti�t�d··a·tratpc •• stop •• on •• l·78 •. We�tpoun.d .•
:: :· .: ::·:: :. ;:: :·:. :: : .;: : ::: . ·::. ::· ': ::-:. ::::: .::::: .;:.::-::.:·:.:::· ::: . . .
two
: :. .:
There wete• (2l $\lbject te11icle. Trooper •KoriopJ(fl.
<>CCttp8.11ts in :the:::.::.::::.:··
a
. . :····::::····"' :-:-· ::. -: .:.:: :.:::···· ·:.:·· :>: ·:··::: .. ::::: : ·:.::::-::·:::::: .: ::· :: ': .:> ::· :· -::::: .: ::: :·:: ": :
. approached. the. passenger. side. ofthe vehicl� • anct lqirnediately. detectbd. stro�g :. .
. :. ·:: .:::· ::: ": :::· :: ·:'. :·.::.::.:: ... ::: ::·: -::: .: ·::: .. : .:::: .. ·:·::··. ":::. :: .: .:: ... ::· :: : :. :.:: .. :::::: <":.:.: ...
. sn1ell of raVl niaxijllflll� eJllana.ti#grroill the vehic,l� .• 111 addition, there VJel"e
• •numerous•.••black••• tree-s�aped •.air • fres�eners •• throi;ghout .• tbe •• v<;hicle•.•••.. TroQper· ..
. Konopka. also • ()b�brved. in. th�. \fellicle • an • iPhorie tl�Jt was • be111g use4 ·. #s. ·�. !o�s
:.·. : .::· .. :.:'.:·: ... .:" .... :<:: ·: :: .·:.::.:::: .:: ... ·>··· ·::·::::::: ::··:·:::":: ;: '":::::::· .::::· :::::·:::::--:::::·: ::::: : .. :: ::: :: :;::: :: .:. ·::· <·:.:: .. :
: >:.:·:::: ::·::::::: ::-::::::--:::·::.::::::::::: .. :::::.:::::::::: .::::::::::< ::::.:: ::_.·; ::::· ··::.:: .· : > .::·:; :::::·::: .. :: ;::::: :: .:· .. :::·.::· :::::·::.:::::
. :. ..
•Troopef
.:: :: :: .:::
• Kol'lo�. ka···reqUe$tecl .•.• that·· tlie•·.driver •• and•·•the···pa.$sertg�r·· ··
::: ::::: :::>·::: > ··:·: :: ::::·:· -:: ·::::.: ··:::: ::: :· ;;:::.::··:: :::·::::::· ·::::.::.:·.:; . .:: .. :;;;:.:;;·.;
. provide • him •.• w.ith •. the. appropriate •.• clocttrnehts, .•. inC.htdin.g •• their .• idbntificatiofr.••
: .:::· .. <<· :::::::::::: ::: ::::-::t::T/1"::: ::::
.: ..... ::::· :::_::: .::<·:: ::-: : :·�::·::.:::;:: ::: ::::::·;;.:::::::::::\·::::::::::::::- ::.::.:::::::::::::: .. :
• This· request was .• ct>ttiplied. \Vith,.and. ce>hsequell#Y• tlie• clriverWas • kle#tified. Sf;,
:: . ::: .. :· ::: I: ::·::.·:: :::,:.:: .. :;: :;.;;:.;:<::<:::.::.:::·:: ::: :.::·.:::::;::::: .::::;:::::::::.:: ::::::;::.::::::::<::::.·.:
t)efendaht. · [)Wayne · La.tty•• of.• Br6ok1yri, : N'ew .• Ybrk. • • • • rrie ! ·. • fr<>nf • • paf>een.ger • wa.s.
: :·'.:: :::.:;: ·:· .:\·:::: ::· ::·::: ::.::::::·.:::·:: :::·.:::: :::·.::::. ::::·::::::::::::: :·::::::::·:::::::·. :::::::::::::·:::. :: ::··:::.::;::::.::::::::::. ::::_:::· ::
.. · .. :: .. .. ... ::··.,:
identified •.• as ••• P�fehdfll'l.t's •. friend, Fa.biat1 ••• Jackso�, •••• of Hqu.stori' .•• Texas.
. : .. ; .· ··::·· ::::::> :>::-:::::>. :.· :: :::·:::: ;: :"'". ::· ., ··.::; :: :: : > .:.::: ... : ::-:: : ·:.·:: ::: (::::··::·:::·:: ::.:·::.:::::::: .:--:::::: :::::-: :·: . . :
. addition, • the �ehid� • \va.s •• tegistered • to.• a.. third pa.rtr. who •• I"C$ided • ltl Alleritowtt .•••
: ·: · . ::: :: :::: :: :·.:"-:::_:·
·: . : : ·::·.::·: :.:· ;;:::: .:: .::: ::.:::::·.::-:: ::. :: :::::: ·::. ::::::::: ::.:::. :: ·:
·: ;:: ::: :: .::: ::·:·:·: ... .: .. :::: .. :::
and •whb... wcrs .. not• . 1:)resent.it1 of the••stop•.
..
•. e.t.tb.e· •time.
.
.
PeI1nsylvania,•• . . .. .. .. .. ..
•the•vebide
.. . . . .. . .. .. . . . . ·{· . . . . ..
: ...... :. : .. :: ::: :::.: .. ::::>·:: :: ::.::. :::·::·::::·:: ::::.:·.:: ..... :· ·:::· :::·.::-:: ::·::: ::·::: .::.: .. :::·· ··:: :. ·:: :.:::. :: ·: .:: ·:' . : :":. :: : . . ....
. . .
. . TroopefKon.opk:a requested that the Defendant e�it ltis vehicle so that he coµlcl .
. .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . :�.: .\'
:.·. :: :: :::: -::·.:: ::<.:::.:.:::: ::::::.::.:::":::· :>:>:::::.::::: .. ·:· .. : ... · .. ::::.:::.·::::::.:.:::::::":: ::: ·:· :::::::":.::. ·:.::.:·.:::::::;::: ::-:: : :"::.: _:: ::-: :·... :·>::·:: :::
speak. with.·l1ilri.• trpbri. cotriplyihg,. the••t>efenda?it. �ppe�i;�::::·.::::::::::::::::<:::::::::::: ::.:::.::::::::::·::·::>:·:::::.:::::::"-:::.:· :··. :. :.: ..
•told•· 'l'r<>op¢r.Konopka··
·
·
. : ··.: ·::·:·· :::.:. :<: ·:: :::: :::::_:::: :: ::::·.: ::: ::::::::::· ::··:::· ::··::< .:: :: : .... : .... :·.::::: : .. : ::::.:: :·::::: :.· :·.:::·::·:··:·:: ::··:: ::: :: :::.:.: ::: ::: .. ::
was unable. t6 • prt>tiae . #Y • �peciflc details.•••• Iriter�sting, • Trooper. Konopka• noted�
. ,. ,., . : : : .. : . :: :··. ;". : ..... :.:. ::·.:::- :.: ... :: ·::.-: :: ·:: :: :: :>:::: .: · .. -:: :::: .. :::: ::· :::· :_";: : ::· .. :: .. :· ... :.::: ::, .. :.: .:
·that• this. inform�tion • contradictetf the. destination on• the. iPhone •OPS .•• • Also{fu,e. · •.
: -":::· :::.:::.:: :: :: ::: :-:::. ::.::: :: :::::<·T-::"IT> :;: (: ::::.:::::::· ::·:::::::.:!::!:: ::::: :: > ;:.:::: '.: ::: :::.·: :::: .. ::: .::·.:: :: :: \) :>:::: .. :::·:;::: ::: .. ::::·::·: :::
D.efendan.t a.dvised•.frooper•I{qnopkathkt he• had\,een • drivirig. t.he . vehicle.J9r •• :
. . ·: .: .. :. : ::: .. . . :: :·: .. · ·: ·: :···
Jamaica.rt Jrienci;. Richarff Hi11es. :in ex¢hartgc{for a )ruck; The Defendant!s .
;· :::: :: .: ·: .. :::::·.· .. :::. :::···::: '\ :. ::::: :-: :
.. . :): ;: :::::.::: ::::;;· ::·:··. :: :::- ::.:::-::::;; ::· :::-:: .. ;:· : ... : . .. ::;::·· ::·:::
..
(
behavior. appeared unusual,. i$• he rep�atedly. stutteted .and wo.uld. hot rria,ke. eye
... ..
:: ·:.::· ;::.:. ::·:·::::::; ::::.:;::.: .. :::: :: ::::: ::.::::·::::: . : . ::::::·;::: :(::::.::: :::::
.. .. ·:::.{ ;;;:.;:::::;:::::::·::: :: : : .. .. _;":::':: ::: ·: ·::::.· ·::::::
·.··contact with 'I'roopet Ko11opka durinij their)Conve.ts�tion( 1'toopefK9nopka
: ::. .. .. .. ::·::·: :::: ·: ,: .. :: ;:; ::·.:::·:::· :: ::.::::::· ::: :::··:::::;_ .. : .. :;: ·::: :::: .... ::·:··::·· :::.::: ::::· .. :. :: .· <" .:::::. :::::. : : : ..
reqUested.· CQilSertt to SC�C}l··the
: . :
•vel1i�l� based .Otl� the .• • totality
.
,of the
'. ·.: .;:· ;; ;; ·: :: ::·-:::·::.::::·:: :< :··::··I ..: ;: :·:::··::.:::·::.::.·:::: ::.-:::::.:: ·:·: :::::· ::: ::.: ::::: ·:>:· ..
:: :::·. :::::- ··::--· ···.: ....
..
cir�umstances. surrounding.the. traffic. �hop. 8llti. the ·l)efe11cia11t,ti�nie.d.colise�t .•.
. : .. .: ·:· : : :: ::· :: ::: : .. : .:.·: .: :·:· : .: .. .. ··::. ::
_ :::·.:: :· :· .: :··· -: ::· .. : -: .::.::· :::·: ·:::: :::::.:.
�e�dallt, 'trooper • ••K9rtopk#i·· •si,o�e.•
1 .••
After ·•·•speaki11g ·•··Vlith ••• ithe •••• I)e
: . .: ··:· ·::::·:::": · .. .: ·.:.:: .. · :.:: .: : :::·:·: :;: ··:· ··:· : ::: .. ::··.:. :.·:::: -: ::.·:. : :. .: ::·. ::·:. :·: :· :::: ..
· .... separatelr \Vitll• the. pa�senget while.he.fas·:�til1lir1�1e.veh1cle .•• Mr.•• Jacl(so�•·to!d·
TJ'OQp�r kottQpka. t:ha.t th�Y wi� tr�v�l,_s to <=l'lariotte fro111 Nei.v york, but did,
.. . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . .. . .. .. .. .. . . . .
not kriow.wha.t.a.tate •• ¢llarfotte.'Wa.$.loca.tecis··•Th�n.:rrooper••Koriopka•ih.qµired. if;
there was• any·lllarijuanr1.iI1.tlle•vehlcle .••••At.this •. tiipe,·.• iMr• Ja.ckson.pfoduce(l,_a.:·•
. clear· plEtstic. coritai11er .fr<>rn ·.his. ftgijt. pants .pocl,••• Trooper•• I{oridpka .• cortci�#te4 •.a. .. • search ••of•• �e. • • •
• veh1bl¢ .•••••.. As.•�· result •..C>f .this.· sefltch, • Ttoqpet .• K()n�p�Et·· located •• �··blaqlc •• pla.sf.ic·••• • • • .
grocery-style:bagbe(nind.tll�·SI)are.tire.111.theitrullk:.6(.tl1e,vehicle'.· ·tJp¢n.bpeni�g··· · · · ·•
.•.the•• bag, •• Trooper·· ·Koitqpija···located··· a. • clear .•• Jr-tigpt • ·�la�tic ••• bag • cqntai!lln�··· a ••
••••Yenow •• iii. color. cyMndric:J•Packige • Wi�·the •word. Ciravi" • in. •bt�ck.Jnatker·. it. • • 011
••
•Trooper •• Konopka .•• Pee1ed•·.back • tlte···packagillg·· ·and•.observed•·.a•. white•·.poV1dery••
. • substElilce ..that..lle. suspected.to •.be •.coCairie .• There. appeated.to.be • appro"\inate1y1 ..
. : ... :: .. : ..... :.·:: :·:.:·::: ·::<::· :: ::::·::::::.::··::·::::-·.:: ::··:::. ::-:::: .. : ..
sso gtanis bf �usp¢cteci docairte. •· doriseqµently/ the, petendKo.t and Mr..
.• placed.�to·custody.and.transported.to.the·Fogelsville.Bax.racks •
·Jackson.Jere pf• .
•
.. . .. : .: .::: :::: :: ::·-:::.: ·::·.-::::.:: .:: : :: :·: .
the Pe11µ�ylvania St�te)olice. • · .
investigative.
detendon.0£.the •. Defet1dant .•.•• Becaµse �e·. 1-)efendallt's •• stop.and ·
detention �ere made.\'7ith l"eciSe>rtal>le suspiciofra#d pro1',b1e cause thati· · .
crime. was.being .coffixnitted,. this. Court. foun�. that. fhe. stop· and. •4etention • were
Trooper.Konopka.po�ted.to.specific.and •• ar9c\llaQle•facts.that.provided:
••1a�ul. ••.• •...
····ajustinaplb.basis[fdr•a•lega.l•stbp,.detet?.tion.�ct sups¢que#f·litrest of :the··················
Defendar1t. I11deed •. tlli� • pdurt conolµcled. that• ��secf o� the 1:otfllit;y of the
1•
• •• •. .. • •. •
.
the. \Vatrantless. Jrest. of. t�e· [)efe�darit. aJd .the• seatc�· of the
drc\lmstruices.:• .. . .. .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . J .. . .
vehicle
were.justifie4•
aJld based.on probable.• caµse .•••• C9nseque11tly,. the. s�arcfr . • •.
. ·ofthe.Pefendant;a•vehiJ1e·.\V�S·proper.a.nd.legal.·· Accordirigly�· the•pliysica1·· · · ·
·.evidence.waslavdullYobtairied.a11d.clidI1otheed ••to:pe.suI?pressed
.••••..• •••
In•ught·ot.the.foregoing,.the.Defendant's.Poot.•
Sentence Moclons.