Com. v. Devine, D.

J-A08014-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DANNY DEVINE
Appellant No. 2300 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 27, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): MC-51-CR-0034500-2014
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED JUNE 16, 2017
Appellant, Danny Devine, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Philadelphia County Municipal Court, as confirmed by the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following denial of his petition
for writ of certiorari. In that petition, Devine argued that the Municipal Court
erred in failing to suppress evidence against him. Devine contends that the
Court of Common Pleas erred in concluding that the arresting officer had
reasonable suspicion to stop Devine and conduct a Terry1 stop and frisk. We
agree. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the petition for writ of
certiorari and vacate the judgment of sentence.
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
J-A08014-17
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On October 8,
2014, Devine was arrested and charged through the filing of a criminal
complaint with possession of a controlled substance. Devine filed a motion to
suppress. The Municipal Court of Philadelphia held a suppression hearing.
At the hearing, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Police
Officer Anthony Mergiotti. At approximately 9:35 a.m. on October 8, 2014,
Officer Mergiotti and his partner were on patrol in a marked police vehicle in
South Philadelphia. See N.T., 3/27/15, at 6. Officer Mergiotti noted that they
were assigned to patrol the area due to recent gang-related shootings. See
id., at 9. As the officers approached the 1600 Block of 5 th Street, Officer
Mergiotti observed Devine standing on a corner, having a conversation with
another man. See id., at 7-8, 12.
The officers continued northbound at which point Devine turned to face
the police vehicle and began to walk “briskly” southbound—towards the
police vehicle. Id., at 8, 11-12. Officer Mergiotti observed that as Devine
was walking, his left arm was swinging freely, but his right arm was
“pressed completely against the right side of his body.” Id. Based upon his
eight years of experience as a police officer, and his knowledge that people
carrying illegal firearms need to hold the firearm as they walk, as they do
not typically holster their weapons, Officer Mergiotti believed that Devine’s
body movements indicated that he was concealing a firearm. See id., at 8,
11.
-2-
J-A08014-17
Officer Mergiotti stopped Devine after Devine had walked
approximately ten feet from where he had previously been standing and
asked him to place his hands on a vehicle. See id., at 13. Devine complied,
and Officer Mergiotti frisked him for weapons. See id., at 14. Officer
Mergiotti began his frisk on Devine’s right side, the side Devine had clutched
his arm against as he was walking, and felt a small two-by-two inch packet
in Devine’s pocket. See id. Through his prior experience with drug
packaging, Officer Mergiotti testified that it was “readily apparent” that the
object was narcotics. Id., at 14-15. As such, he removed the object from
Devine’s pocket and discovered that Devine had a clear Ziploc packet
containing a glassine insert with a white substance, later identified as heroin.
See id., at 14. Devine did not testify at the suppression hearing or present
any additional evidence.
Following the hearing, the Honorable Robert Blasi of the Philadelphia
County Municipal Court denied Devine’s suppression motion, stating that
Officer Mergiotti had the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop Devine and
search him for weapons. The parties immediately proceeded to a bench trial,
following which Judge Blasi found Devine guilty of possession of a controlled
substance and imposed a one-year probationary sentence. Devine filed a
writ of certiorari with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas from the
denial of his suppression motion. On July 13, 2015, the court reviewed the
-3-
J-A08014-17
findings of the Municipal Court and denied Devine’s writ. 2 This timely appeal
follows.
On appeal, Devine argues that the Court of Common Pleas erred in
denying his pre-trial motion to suppress evidence gained from the arresting
officer’s stop and subsequent search of Devine’s person. See Appellant’s
Brief, at 3, 6-18. Specifically, Devine contends that the officer did not have
the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop, and further, that
once Devine was stopped, the officer did not have probable cause to perform
the search. See id., at 3, 11-18.
Our standard of review of the denial of a motion to suppress evidence
is as follows.
Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to the denial of
a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the
suppression court’s factual findings are supported by the record
and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are
correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the
suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the
Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as
remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record
as a whole. Where the suppression court’s factual findings are
supported by the record, we are bound by these findings and
may reverse only if the court’s legal conclusions are erroneous.
Where … the appeal of the determination of the suppression
____________________________________________
2
“If the defendant files a certiorari petition challenging the denial of a
suppression motion, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County sits
as an appellate court and reviews the record of the suppression hearing in
the Municipal Court.” Commonwealth v. Neal, 151 A.3d 1068, 1070 (Pa.
Super. 2016) (citations omitted). In performing the review, the court
“applies precisely the same standard that the Superior Court applies in
appeals from common pleas court orders denying motions to suppress.” Id.-4-
J-A08014-17
court turns on allegations of legal error, the suppression court’s
legal conclusions are not binding on the appellate court, whose
duty it is to determine if the suppression court properly applied
the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the [trial]
court[ ] … are subject to our plenary review.
Commonwealth v. Hoppert, 39 A.3d 358, 361-62 (Pa. Super. 2012)
(citation omitted). Here, the record supports the Court of Common Pleas’
factual findings. Thus, we proceed to review the court’s legal conclusions.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees,
“[t]he right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated….”
U.S. Const. amend. IV. Similarly, the Pennsylvania Constitution assures the
citizens of our Commonwealth that “[t]he people shall be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and possession from unreasonable searches and
seizures….” Pa. Const. art. I, § 8.
“The reasonableness of a government intrusion varies with the degree
of privacy legitimately expected and the nature of the governmental
intrusion.” Commonwealth v. Fleet, 114 A.3d 840, 844 (Pa. Super. 2015)
(citation omitted). Interactions between law enforcement and citizens fall
into one of three following categories.
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 respond.
The second, an “investigative detention” must be supported by
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. Finally, an
arrest or “custodial detention” must be supported by probable
cause.
-5-
J-A08014-17
Id., at 845 (citation omitted).
Here, Officer Mergiotti testified that he asked Devine to stop and place
his hands on a vehicle. It is clear from Officer Mergiotti’s own testimony that
Devine was not free to leave, and was thus subject to an investigative
detention when stopped and searched for weapons. As such, we must next
determine whether Officer Mergiotti had articulable and reasonable suspicion
to justify his stop of Devine. Devine contends that the totality of the
circumstances does not support Officer Mergiotti‘s conclusion that he had
reasonable suspicion to perform an investigative detention, otherwise known
as a Terry stop and frisk. See Appellant’s Brief, at 11-12.
When this Court evaluates whether a Terry stop is constitutional,
[o]ur inquiry is a dual one—whether the officer’s action was
justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related
in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in
the first place. Regarding the stop, a police officer may, short of
an arrest, conduct an investigative detention if he has a
reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts,
that criminality is afoot. The fundamental inquiry is an objective
one, namely, whether the facts available to the officer at the
moment of the [intrusion] warrant a man of reasonable caution
in the belief that the action taken was appropriate. This
assessment, like that applicable to the determination of probable
cause, requires an evaluation of the totality of the
circumstances, with a lesser showing needed to demonstrate
reasonable suspicion in terms of both quantity or content and
reliability.
An individual’s suspicious and furtive behavior that, in the
opinion of an experienced police officer under certain
circumstances, indicates criminal activity, reasonably justifies an
investigative detention.
-6-
J-A08014-17
Further, the delicate balance between protecting the right
of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,
on the one hand, and protecting the safety of our citizens and
police officer by allowing police to make limited intrusions on
citizens while investigating crime, on the other hand, requires
additional considerations when the police have a reasonable
suspicion that a person may be armed. …
***
Thus, … a police officer may frisk an individual during an
investigatory detention when the officer believes, based on
specific and articulable facts, that the individual is armed and
dangerous. When assessing the reasonableness of an officer’s
decision to frisk a suspect during an investigatory detention, and
appellate court does not consider the officer’s unparticularized
suspicion or hunch but rather the specific reasonable inferences
which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his
experience.
Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 894 A.2d 759, 771-772 (Pa. Super. 2006)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted; brackets in original).
Here, the only articulable facts that Officer Mergiotti offered to support
his reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot was that Devine was
in a high crime area and walked “briskly” away from a corner while holding
his right arm against his body. Officer Mergiotti testified that he believed this
arm movement to be indicative of concealing a firearm because of his
knowledge that people carrying illegal firearms do not use holsters.
Immediately following this observation, and before Devine had walked more
than ten feet, Officer Mergiotti ordered Devine to stop and conducted a
search of Devine’s person.
While this Court has examined the totality of the circumstances to
support a finding of reasonable suspicion to perform an investigative
-7-
J-A08014-17
detention in a variety of situations, we find the circumstances present in
Commonwealth v. Martinez to be most analogous to the case at hand.
588 A.2d 513 (Pa. Super. 1991). Notably, this Court held that a situation in
which the defendant “walked quickly away from a group of people on a
street corner after observing a police vehicle . . . [and] where . . . officers
observed a bulge in her front pocket[,]” does not constitute reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity necessary for an investigative detention. Id., at
514. This fact pattern is almost identical to the case at hand, except instead
of noting a bulge, Officer Mergiotti noted an arm movement, which he felt
was indicative of secreting a firearm. However, we do not find that this one
factor is significant enough to change the ultimate result. As such, based
upon the solid reasoning of Martinez, we find that Officer Mergiotti lacked
the reasonable suspicion necessary to stop Devine.
Further, while the Commonwealth cites several cases to support the
finding that the totality of the circumstances establishes reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity, we find that all of these cases are readily
distinguishable. For instance, the officers were not responding to a radio
broadcast reporting probable criminal activity in progress when he stopped
Devine. Cf. Commonwealth v. Ranson, 103 A.3d 73, 80 (Pa. Super.
2014). Devine did not turn and walk away from the police, but rather turned
and walked in the direction of the oncoming police vehicle. Cf.
Commonwealth v. Foglia, 979 A.2d 357, 361 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc)
(finding “evasive behavior” in walking away from police contributes to
-8-
J-A08014-17
reasonable suspicion). Nor, obviously, did Devine run from the officers. Cf.
Commonwealth v. Tucker, 883 A.2d 625, 630-631 (Pa. Super. 2005)
(finding unprovoked flight in a high crime area suffices to satisfy the Terry
standard of reasonable suspicion).
Viewing the proposed basis for the investigative detention of Devine
within the totality of the circumstances, we do not find that Officer Mergiotti
had the requisite reasonable suspicion that Devine was engaging in criminal
activity. Accordingly, Devine was subject to an illegal detention, and the
court erred in failing to suppress the physical evidence obtained from
Devine’s person during the subsequent search. We therefore reverse the
order and vacate the judgment of sentence.3
Order reversed. Judgment of Sentence vacated. Case remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this memorandum. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
____________________________________________
3
Due to our disposition of Devine’s appeal, we need not address Devine’s
second issue on appeal, i.e., that Officer Mergiotti did not have the requisite
probable cause necessary to remove the contraband following a search of
Devine’s person.
-9-
J-A08014-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/16/2017
- 10 -