Com. v. Edwards, B.

J-S48025-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
BASHEIR FAKHA EDWARDS
Appellant No. 2183 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered October 25, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0000294-2013
BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
The Commonwealth appeals an order from the Luzerne County
motion. We affirm.
By criminal information filed February 21, 2013, the Commonwealth
charged Edwards with possession of a prohibited firearm,1 carrying a firearm
without a license,2 two counts of receiving stolen property,3 defiant
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1).
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(1).
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a).
J-S48025-14
trespass,4 and driving without a license.5 On June 27, 2013, Edwards filed a
motion to suppress the evidence, including a firearm, alleging the police
seized him in his vehicle without probable cause or reasonable suspicion in
violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
Article I Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See U.S. Const. Amend.
IV; Pa. Const. Art. I § 8; Motion to Suppress, June 17, 2013, ¶¶ 1-5. After a
hearing, the suppression court granted his motion. Order Granting Motion to
Suppress, 10/25/2013.
In its suppression hearing findings, the trial court aptly set forth the
factual history as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to an agreement of the parties, the Motion to
Suppress relates only to the basis for the vehicle stop on
December 12, 2012.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On December 12, 2012, Plains Township patrol
sergeant Dale Binker was working the 11:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m. shift.
2. During the early morning hours of December 12,
2012, sergeant Dale Binker was parked in a marked
patrol vehicle in a lot near the Jazz Café off of River
Street in Plains Township, Luzerne County[,]
Pennsylvania.
____________________________________________
4
18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(b)(1)(ii).
5
75 Pa.C.S. § 1501(a).
-2-
J-S48025-14
3. At approximately 1:17 a.m. on December 12, 2012,
sergeant Binker observed a yellow vehicle enter the
lot and travel on a dirt access road into a wooded
area.
4. Sergeant Binker pursued the yellow vehicle,
activated his lights and stopped the vehicle on the
dirt access road.
5. The dirt access road leads to Canadian Pacific
railroad property.
6. Sergeant Binker testified that he had
suspicions regarding the yellow vehicle which
is why he activated his lights to bring the
vehicle to a stop.
7. No testimony was provided as to any specific
suspicions with regard to the yellow vehicle.
8. [Officer] Michael Savokinas testified that he was
employed as a Canadian Pacific railway police officer.
9. Officer Savokinas did not know if the portion of the
access road on which the yellow vehicle was
traveling and eventually stopped was owned by the
Canadian Pacific railroad.
10. Sergeant Binker and Officer Savokinas provided
credible testimony at the suppression hearing held
on October 22, 2013.
Statement in Lieu of Opinion, January 6, 2014 (adopting Findings of Fact and
-3 (page numbers
-3-
J-S48025-14
supplied) (emphasis added). On November 25, 2013, after the trial court
6
The Commonwealth presents the following issue for our review:
[I.] Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop
access road to private property?
court erred by finding that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to
conduct the stop under the totality of the circumstances. See, e.g.,
When the Commonwealth appeals from a suppression order,
this Court may consider only the evidence from the
the prosecution that, when read in the context of the
record as a whole, remains uncontradicted.
Commonwealth v. Whitlock, 69 A.3d 635, 637
(Pa.Super.2013) (citation omitted).[7] In our review,
____________________________________________
6
The Commonwealth and the suppression court complied with Pa.R.A.P.
1925. See Statement at 1 (citing Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(1)). An order granting
a suppression motion is considered an interlocutory order. Further, the
Commonwealth has complied with Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) by certifying that the
7
Because the trial court granted the suppression motion prior to October 30,
2013, we review the entire record. Cf. In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073, 1080
(Pa.2013).
-4-
J-S48025-14
conclusions of law, and we must determine if the
suppression court properly applied the law to the
facts. Id.
findings of fact because, as the finder of fact, it is
credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be
given to their testimony. Id. (citing
Commonwealth v. Baker, 946 A.2d 691, 693
(Pa.Super.2008)).
Commonwealth v. Hudson, 92 A.3d 1235, 1241 (Pa.Super.2014). Further,
[t]he Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution protect individuals against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
Commonwealth v. Miller, 56 A.3d 424, 429
(Pa.Super.2012). Warrantless searches or seizures
are presumptively unreasonable subject to certain
established exceptions. Id. (citation omitted).
Id. In responding to a suppression motion, the Commonwealth has the
burden of presenting evidence and establishing, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the police did not obtain the challenged evidence in violation
See Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(H); Commonwealth v.
Anthony, 1 A.3d 914, 919 (Pa.Super.2010).
A police officer may initiate an investigatory vehicle stop when he has
reasonable suspicion to believe a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code is
occurring or has occurred. Commonwealth v. Bailey, 947 A.2d 808, 811
of
criminal activity or a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code under the authority
-5-
J-S48025-14
Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285, 1291 (Pa.Super.2010) (internal
citation omitted).
o establish grounds for reasonable suspicion, the
officer must articulate specific observations which, in
conjunction with reasonable inferences derived from
those observations, led him reasonably to conclude,
in light of his experience, that criminal activity was
afoot and that the person he stopped was involved in
See Commonwealth v. Reppert, 814
A.2d 1196, 1203 (Pa.Super.2002) (citing
Commonwealth v. Cook, 558 Pa. 50, 735 A.2d
673, 677 (1999)).
existed at the time [the officer conducted the stop]
must be answered by examining the totality of the
circumstances to determine whether the officer who
initiated the stop had a particularized and objective
basis Id.
Therefore, the fundamental inquiry of a reviewing
the facts available to the officer at the moment of
the [stop] warrant a man of reasonable caution in
the bel Id.
(quoting Commonwealth v. Zhahir, 561 Pa. 545,
751 A.2d 1153, 1156 (2000)).
Commonwealth v. Anthony, 1 A.3d 914, 919-20 (Pa.Super.2010)
(selected internal quotations omitted).
The suppression court held that when Sergeant Binker activated his
lights and pulled Edwards over, he stopped him without reasonable suspicion
based on specific, articulable facts that criminal activity was afoot.
Statement ¶¶ 8-10, at 3-4. We agree.
Prior to the stop, there was no indication of illegal activity. The vehicle
was not speeding. N.T. 10/22/2013, p. 11. There was no reason to suspect
-6-
J-S48025-14
that the vehicle was trespassing on private property, since there were no
Id. at p. 17. Instead, the
officer merely had generalized, unfounded suspicions about the vehicle, as
the following testimony demonstrates:
Q [Prosecution]: And at that point in time [while
working on December 12, 2012], what did you do
upon seeing that vehicle?
A [Sergeant Binker]: At that time, I proceeded to
we had numerous stolen cars placed in the woods.
We had people illegally dumping, and we also had
people back there poaching.
***
Q [Defense counsel]: When you saw the yellow
car, you had no indication [that it was engaged in
illegal activity], did you?
A: I saw a vehicle pull into the woods which [] was
suspicious at that time.
Q:
A: Yes.
Q: going on?
A: It could have been easy to be explained as
somebody dumping or could have been a parker, or
a girl going back there and they could have gotten
woods.
***
N.T. 10/22/2013, pp. 6, 15-16.
-7-
J-S48025-14
investigative detention [as opposed to an arrest], you do need reasonable
suspicion, w
no indication of any illegal activity being afoot. And, therefore, it should not
-27. The
suppression court agreed and suppressed all evidence seized as a result of
the stop. Statement ¶¶ 8-10, at 3-4. We discern no error of law in the trial
Order affirmed.
Judge Donohue joins in the memorandum.
Judge Platt files a dissenting statement.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/18/2014
-8-