Commonwealth v. Atkins

245 A.3d 1095 (Table)

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Jerwahn Lee ATKINS, Appellant

No. 955 WDA 2019

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed December 23, 2020

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:

Appellant Jerwahn Lee Atkins appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions for carrying a firearm without a license (VUFA) and escape. ¹ Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his suppression motion after police unlawfully detained him beyond the timeframe necessary to complete the initial traffic stop. We affirm.

The trial court set forth the relevant facts as follows:

This matter arises out of [Appellant's] arrest during a traffic stop of a vehicle in which [Appellant] was a passenger. The vehicle was stopped for a nonfunctioning taillight and the failure to have required insurance. During the stop the officer[s] were concerned about [Appellant's] hand movements near his waistband. As the vehicle could not be driven and was to be towed, the officers ordered each of the occupants out of the vehicle. As [Appellant] was exiting the vehicle the officers were concerned about his behavior and instructed him to place his hands on the vehicle. [Appellant] began to run and one of the officers grabbed at him as he ran and [Appellant's] shirt was pulled off and a gun dropped from his waistband. [Appellant] filed a motion to suppress alleging that the traffic stop had concluded at the time that [Appellant] was ordered from the vehicle and there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to further detain or search him.

At the suppression hearing[,] the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Officers Joshua Stinebaugh and Aaron Spangler of the City of Pittsburgh Police Department. Officer Stinebaugh testified that he and his training partner were on patrol in a marked vehicle on May 30, 2018, when they effectuated a traffic stop of a vehicle that had a burned out taillight. After running the plate, it was determined that the vehicle's license was suspended as a result of the cancellation of insurance. As the officers approached the vehicle[,] they noted that there were three occupants, with [Appellant] being seated in the right rear passenger's seat. Officer Stinebaugh testified that while Officer Spangler was checking the identification of the occupants of the vehicle[,] he noted [Appellant's] phone kept ringing or alerting and [Appellant] was repeatedly putting his hands in his pocket and wiping his palms on his thighs. Officer Stinebaugh testified that [Appellant's] movements made him nervous so he asked [Appellant] to stop reaching into his pockets and eventually told him to put his hands on the headrest of the seat in front of him.

However, [Appellant] kept reaching down around his waistband. Officer Spangler, after checking the occupants’ identification, returned to the vehicle and ordered the occupants of the vehicle out of the vehicle as it was going to be towed. Stinebaugh testified that the occupants were ordered to exit the vehicle one at a time, with the driver first. When [Appellant] was instructed to exit the vehicle [Appellant] stated that the right rear passenger's door was broken so Officer Stinebaugh signaled to Officer Spangler that [Appellant] was coming out the rear driver side door. Officer Stinebaugh testified that when [Appellant] exited the vehicle: "I seen him take like a bladed stance as if he was about to take off. Officer Spangler took notice and tried to grab him, and that's when a struggle ensued. One thing [led] to another, his shirt came off, a gun fell and he took off."

Officer Stinebaugh testified that the gun fell from [Appellant's] waistband when the struggle ensued between Officer Spangler and [Appellant]. After the gun fell, Officer Spangler stood by the gun and Officer Stinebaugh pursued [Appellant] and apprehended him.

On cross-examination[,] Officer Stinebaugh acknowledged that he was wearing a body camera and that he approached the vehicle on the passenger side and that his body camera captured his interaction with [Appellant]. He acknowledged that the body camera showed [Appellant's] left arm resting on his knee and that "throughout the video you see his arm come up sometimes" but that "[i]t comes up and goes down, yes." He also acknowledged that the video shows Officer Spangler speaking to the driver and informing him that "He's seizing the vehicle because nobody can drive it because the insurance is suspended." He also testified that the video shows [Appellant] asking Officer Spangler if he can get out of the car and that [Appellant] is told, "No, not yet." He also acknowledged that the video did not show him telling [Appellant] to take his hands away from his waist, to put his hands on the headrest or that the phone was ringing. Officer Stinebaugh testified that at 16:33:48 in the video it showed the initial point "where I told him to put his hands up" which he did, and then he dropped them, but he did not say anything about the headrest. He also acknowledged that at 16:34:54 the video shows [Appellant] beginning to flee.

The Commonwealth then called Officer [ ] Spangler who also testified concerning the reason for the traffic stop and testified that when he approached the vehicle he noted a strong odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. He testified that Officer Stinebaugh informed him that

the rear passenger was refusing to comply with some of the commands he giving was him, specifically about showing his hands and that he kept grabbing at his waistband and that Officer Stinebaugh told him a few times to keep his hands up on the front seat of the vehicle which he did not comply.

[Officer Spangler] testified that [the officers] indicated that they were going to remove the occupants from the vehicle and [Appellant] slid across that back seat to get out on the driver's side and,

[a]s he was opening the door, I asked him to put his hands up in the vehicle. He slowly started to but then stopped, and he tensed up on me. That is why I went to grab him, put his hands up. He immediately pulled his hands down, turned his stance away from me and started to flee in the opposite direction. I tried to my grasp arms around him. That day it was very hot. He actually slipped through my arms, and his whole T-shirt came off in my hands, which we preserved as evidence.

Officer Spangler also testified that as [Appellant] was running:

He was really grabbing at his waistband. I started yelling commands for him to stop. Like I said, I was in full uniform. At that time a black handgun fell out of his waistband and hit the ground.

Officer Spangler testified on cross-examination that the report prepared by Officer Stinebaugh indicated that he notified the occupants of the vehicle that he smelled marijuana and he believed that he had notified the driver of the vehicle that he smelled marijuana. He acknowledged, however, that at the point that he took the identification of the occupants of the vehicle his vehicle's dash camera did not record him stating that he smelled marijuana. He also acknowledged that the dash camera did not record Officer Stinebaugh telling him that [Appellant] was acting "nervous or fidgety" or that he told [Appellant] to keep his hands up or on the headrest although Officer Spangler testified that "I notified Officer Stinebaugh to keep a watch on the passenger twice." Spangler testified that the dash camera showed [Appellant] leaning over and asking "Can I get out of the vehicle" to which he responded "Not yet."

Trial Ct. Op., 12/17/19, 1-5 (some formatting altered, record citations omitted).

On March 14, 2019, the trial court denied Appellant's motion to suppress. Following a non-jury trial on June 5, 2019, the trial court convicted Appellant of VUFA and escape. That same day, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of two years’ probation. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. ² The trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant's claims.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue:

Whether [Appellant] was subjected to an unlawful detention where, absent additional reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity was afoot, the police officers detained [Appellant] beyond the timeframe necessary to effectuate the purpose of the traffic stop, in violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution ?

Appellant's Brief at 4.

In challenging the trial court's suppression ruling, Appellant acknowledges that the initial traffic stop was lawful. Id. at 16. However, he asserts that the traffic stop ended when Officer Spangler informed the driver "that his vehicle would have to be impounded." Id. at 24. At that point, Appellant contends that "all tasks reasonably tied to the traffic infraction had been completed." Id. at 24. Therefore, he argues that "the officers’ continued detention of [Appellant], a mere passenger, was unrelated to the purpose of the traffic stop," and therefore required reasonable suspicion. Id. at 24-25 (relying on Commonwealth v. Reppert , 814 A.2d 1196, 1202 (Pa. Super. 2002) ( en banc )).

Appellant claims that "unlike in [ Commonwealth v. Palmer , 145 A.3d 170 (Pa. Super. 2016) ], where the police officer ordered the occupants to exit the vehicle so that it could be safely towed, [Officer] Spangler specifically testified that he ordered [Appellant] and the other occupants out of the car so that he could search them." Id. at 24-25. Further, Appellant argues that "even if the police officers were permitted to refuse [Appellant's] request to exit the vehicle so that the tow could be carried out in an orderly fashion, their authority to continue to detain [Appellant] clearly ended once [Appellant exited] the vehicle." Id. In any event, Appellant argues that the police lacked reasonable suspicion and, therefore,...