Commonwealth v. Cahill

1

2024 PA Super 202

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL ANTHONY CAHILL Appellant

No. 140 MDA 2024

No. J-S26037-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

September 10, 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 11, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-01-CR-0001412-2022

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

OPINION

KUNSELMAN, J.

Michael Anthony Cahill appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after he was convicted of obstructing administration of law resisting arrest, driving under the influence (DUI) possession of a small amount of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving with an obscured registration plate.^[1] Police stopped him for driving with a license plate cover, after this Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Ruffin, 282 A.3d 796 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding any partial license plate cover violates Section 1332 of the Vehicle Code), and before the enactment of Act 112 of 2022 (amending Section 1332 to permit some license plate frames). We hold the trial court properly denied suppression because the police had probable cause to suspect that Cahill violated the law as it existed at the time of the stop. Further, we find the evidence sufficient to sustain Cahill's convictions for DUI and resisting arrest. Accordingly, we affirm.

This case arose from an incident on September 28, 2022, when Trooper Bradley Fornwalt of the Pennsylvania State Police stopped Cahill in Adams County, Pennsylvania. Trooper Fornwalt charged Cahill with the above offenses and three moving violations. The charges were held for court.

Cahill moved to suppress evidence from the traffic stop. The trial court held a hearing and found that Trooper Fornwalt observed Cahill driving with a license plate cover that prevented him from reading the license plate from approximately 20 feet away. The court concluded that the ensuing traffic stop was supported by probable cause that Cahill violated Section 1332(b) of the Vehicle Code in effect at the time of the stop. The court denied suppression.

The case proceeded to a non-jury trial. Trooper Fornwalt was the only witness. The trial court recounted the facts as follows:

On September 28, 2022, at approximately 10:24 AM, Trooper Bradley Fornwalt . . . of the Pennsylvania State Police was in a marked patrol vehicle in Straban Township, Adams County, Pennsylvania. Trooper Fornwalt has approximately five years of law enforcement experience. He has received Standard Field Sobriety Test and ARIDE training. He has conducted approximately 350 DUI investigations, of which 250-280 involved marijuana.

Trooper Fornwalt observed a grey Honda Accord driving with tags that he could not read because of a covering over the license plate. Trooper Fornwalt then effectuated a traffic stop [based on the obscured registration plate].

[Cahill] was driving the Honda Accord and lit a cigarette as Trooper Fornwalt approached. Once the cigarette was put out, Trooper Fornwalt could smell the odor of burnt marijuana.

Trooper Fornwalt observed [Cahill] had red, bloodshot, and glassy eyes. [Cahill] told Trooper Fornwalt that there was marijuana in the car and that he was a medical marijuana user in Maryland, but he did not have a Pennsylvania card. There were two containers of labeled marijuana in the car, but they were not packaged properly based on Pennsylvania regulations . . . . Based on these observations, Trooper Fornwalt believed [Cahill] was under the influence of a controlled substance and ordered [Cahill] to exit the vehicle.

[Cahill] performed several Standard Field Sobriety Tests and ARIDE tests. During the Walk and Turn Test, [Cahill] started the test too soon, had an improper turn, and raised his arms on the return walk. During the One-Leg Stand Test, [Cahill] was swaying and put his foot down after 26 seconds. During the Modified Romberg Test, [Cahill] had eyelid tremors and swayed in a circular motion. During the Lack of Convergence Test, [Cahill's] left eye did not converge. Trooper Fornwalt testified that these were all indicators that [Cahill] was under the influence of a controlled substance. Additionally, [Cahill] gave consent for Trooper Fornwalt to search his vehicle, and Trooper Fornwalt found a metal grinder and a smoking device. Based on these observations, and based on his training and experience, Trooper Fornwalt believed [Cahill] was under the influence of a controlled substance to a degree rendering him incapable of safe driving. Trooper Fornwalt then placed [Cahill] under arrest for driving under the influence.

[Cahill] refused to consent to a blood draw, and he was taken to the Pennsylvania State Police Gettysburg Station. Trooper Fornwalt began the process of obtaining a search warrant, but [Cahill] kept asking to see a lawyer or see a judge. Trooper Fornwalt explained that he had to finish the search warrant first. [Cahill] was seated on a bench, handcuffed. [Cahill] began banging his head on the wall. [Cahill] hit his head hard enough that the whole wall shook and a Lieutenant a few rooms over could hear it. Several officers had to stop [Cahill] and restrain him to keep him from injuring himself. After [Cahill] was given a chance to calm down, [Cahill] refused, and it required six officers to restrain him. The officers then decided to take [Cahill] to a patrol vehicle to transport him to the prison. [Cahill] kicked his feet and flailed around. Multiple officers had to hold his arms, midsection, and feet while he was on the ground. Multiple troopers had to assist with taking [Cahill] to the patrol vehicle. One trooper had to sit in the back of the patrol vehicle with [Cahill] to hold his head still, which Trooper Fornwalt testified was not usually required.

[Cahill's] actions prevented Trooper Fornwalt from completing the process of obtaining a search warrant for a blood draw, and no blood draw was taken.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/13/24, at 1-4 (footnotes omitted).

The trial court found Cahill guilty of obstructing administration of law, resisting arrest, DUI, possession of a small amount of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving with an obscured registration plate and not guilty of the three moving violations. On January 11, 2024, the trial court sentenced Cahill to an aggregate term of 3 to 6 months of confinement, concurrent with 24 months of probation.

Cahill timely appealed on January 25, 2024. Cahill and the trial court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925. Cahill presents three issues for review:

Whether the trial court erred in denying [Cahill's] Motion for Suppression of Evidence, inasmuch as Trooper Fornwalt lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion required to initiate a traffic stop?

Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Cahill] was guilty of driving under the influence of a controlled substance to such an extent that he was incapable of safe driving?

Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove [Cahill's] guilt of resisting arrest beyond a reasonable doubt?

Cahill's Brief at 4 (format altered).

Cahill first challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He argues that Trooper Fornwalt used the obstructed license plate as a pretext to stop him,^[2] but the stop was based on a mistake of law and thus lacked probable cause. Specifically, Cahill claims this Court's opinion in Ruffin "was in error" based on subsequent legislation, so Trooper Fornwalt could not rely on our interpretation of Section 1332 to initiate a traffic stop.

We apply the following standard:

Our review is limited to determining whether the record supports the findings of fact of the suppression court and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those findings are correct. We are bound by the factual findings of the suppression court, which are supported by the record, but we are not bound by the suppression court's legal rulings, which we review de novo.

Commonwealth v. Mendoza, 287 A.3d 457, 462 (Pa. Super. 2022) (quoting Commonwealth v. James, 69 A.3d 180, 186 (Pa. 2013)). Where the factual findings are not in dispute, this Court's applies the same legal standard as the suppression court-here, to determine whether Trooper Fornwalt had a constitutionally sufficient basis to stop Cahill. See id. at 463 n.5.

A traffic stop is a "seizure" for constitutional purposes, entitling the subject of the stop to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Commonwealth v. Malloy, 257 A.3d 142, 147-48 (Pa. Super. 2021). The quantum of cause needed to stop a vehicle turns on whether the stop can "serve a stated investigatory purpose." Id. at 148 (quoting Commonwealth v. Feczko, 10 A.3d 1285, 1290 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc)). Where further investigation is needed, e.g., a stop for suspected DUI, an officer needs reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. Commonwealth v. Walls, 206 A.3d 537, 541 (Pa. Super. 2019). Where further investigation would provide no additional information, e.g., a stop for an obscured license plate, an officer needs probable cause. Ruffin, 282 A.3d at 801.

Probable cause for a search or seizure is a "practical, non-technical concept" that depends on the totality of the circumstances. Commonwealth v. Barr, 266 A.3d 25, 40 (Pa. 2021) (citations omitted).

In order for a traffic stop to be justified, a police officer must have probable cause to believe that a violation of the Vehicle Code or regulations has taken place. The officer must be able to articulate specific facts possessed by him at the time of the questioned stop, which would provide probable cause to believe that the vehicle or the driver was in some violation of some provision of the Vehicle Code.

...