Commonwealth v. Davis

287 A.3d 875 (Table)

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Curtis DAVIS, Appellant

No. 1339 WDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed: October 18, 2022

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:

Curtis Davis (Davis) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) following his bench conviction of carrying a firearm without a license.¹ Davis challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. We affirm.

I.

This case arises from a November 2020 incident during which police confiscated a firearm from a vehicle in which Davis had been traveling as a front seat passenger. Following his arrest, Davis filed a motion seeking suppression of the evidence seized by police as unlawfully obtained. City of Pittsburgh Police Department Detective Santino Mammarelli was the sole witness at the August 26, 2021 suppression hearing.

Detective Mammarelli testified that has worked as a detective for eight years and has been involved in hundreds of narcotics investigations. (See N.T. Suppression Hearing, 8/26/21, at 3). On November 10, 2020, he was on routine patrol in an unmarked police vehicle with his partner Detective Louis Schweitzer in a high crime area known for open dug transactions, gun arrests and shootings. Detectives Mammarelli and Schweitzer had been shot at themselves in the immediate vicinity.

At about 10:00 p.m., the detectives encountered a vehicle with all four of its tires parked on a curb directly underneath a "No Parking" sign. Davis was standing outside the vehicle near the driver's side door talking to the female driver. The detectives activated their overhead lights and sirens and pulled up behind the vehicle's bumper. As they approached the car, Detective Mammarelli "observed [Davis] reach with his right hand to his waistband and what I believed–he was sort of cradling his hand as if he was concealing a firearm." (Id. at 6). Detective Mammarelli testified that Davis's behavior was consistent with his prior experience in making arrests involving firearms, including "how [Davis] was gripping, and then he didn't let go." (Id. ) Davis quickly went around the vehicle and "jumped inside" the passenger's front seat, and Detective Mammarelli saw "into the back windshield into the car and I observed him removing a firearm from the waistband and placing it under the passenger seat." (Id. at 6-7). At that point, Detective Mammarelli ordered Davis out of the vehicle and Davis stood at the rear of the car with Detective Schweitzer. Detective Mammarelli recovered the firearm and testified that he did so out of fear for their safety, acting "so quickly [because] once I saw him place the firearm under the seat, I wanted to remove him from the same place as the firearm for our safety as well as his." (Id. at 7).

On cross-examination, Detective Mammarelli explained that his initial observation was the vehicle on the curb and then "our attention was drawn to a male with a firearm." (Id. at 9). Although Detective Mammarelli did not initially see a firearm, he "observed the characteristics which drew me to further investigate, and I observed him remove it from his waistband and place it under the seat ... once he got inside the vehicle, I watched him remove it and place it under the seat." (Id. ). As Detective Mammarelli removed the firearm, his partner detained Davis and placed him under arrest. Davis told the detectives that he had marijuana on his person, and when asked if he had a permit for the gun, Davis "made it clear that he did not, as well as we ran him through NCIC [and] ran him through County Index and it determined that he did not have a license." (Id. at 11). At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement pending the submission of briefs.

The trial court denied Davis's motion to suppress on September 16, 2021. In doing so, it found that Detective Mammarelli credibly testified that the area he and his partner were patrolling was a high crime area known for multiple incidents of shots fired; the vehicle was clearly parked illegally; the police had reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot; given the totality of the circumstances, Davis's constitutional rights were not violated. (See Order, 9/16/21).

On October 14, 2021, Davis waived his right to a jury trial after a colloquy and elected to proceed to a stipulated bench trial. The Commonwealth submitted into evidence three exhibits, "all of which have been stipulated to in terms of the admissibility and authenticity": Exhibit 1, a certified Pennsylvania State Police gun licensure form showing that Davis did not have a valid license to carry a firearm on the date of his arrest; Exhibit 2, the Allegheny County Office of Medical Examiner and Crime Lab results stating that the .380 auto caliber pistol submitted for examination was test fired and found to be operable; and Exhibit 3, the transcript of the August 2021 suppression hearing. (N.T. Trial, 10/14/21, at 7) (emphasis added). The defense submitted no evidence and called no witnesses to testify on Davis's behalf. Davis averred that he was aware of his right to call character witnesses or testify himself, and that his decision not to do so was "knowing, intelligent and voluntary." (Id. at 9). During oral argument, defense counsel made no mention of the crime lab report concerning the firearm at Exhibit 2.

The trial court found Davis guilty of the firearms offense and sentenced him to a term of 18 months’ probation. Davis timely appealed and he and the trial court complied with Rule 1925. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)-(b). In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court stated its findings that Davis was not subject to a seizure at the time he was standing outside of the vehicle conversing with the female passenger, that police were justified in seizing the firearm, and that sufficient evidence supports his firearms conviction. (See Trial Court Opinion, 2/28/22, at 5-12).

II.

A.

Davis first challenges the trial court's denial of his suppression motion by arguing that the detectives detained him without reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity. (See Davis's Brief, at 6, 14-29).² Davis disputes the trial court's finding that he was not subject to a seizure when he was standing outside the vehicle, claiming he "had no reason to know why the detective was conducting a stop, nor did he have any reason to know who that detective was stopping [as he] was standing outside the driver's window talking to the driver ... and like any reasonable pedestrian, did not feel free to simply walk away and ignore the police." (Id. at 19; see id. at 17, 26). With regard to Detective Mammarelli's seizure of the firearm, Davis contends that it was the product of an unlawful warrantless search because the detective lacked probable cause or exigent circumstances to justify it. (See id. at 6, 30-32).

We begin by observing with regard to search and seizure law that:

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantee the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures. To secure the right of citizens to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, courts in Pennsylvania require law enforcement officers to demonstrate ascending levels of suspicion to justify their interactions with citizens to the extent those interactions compromise individual liberty. Because interactions between law enforcement and the general citizenry are widely varied, search and seizure law examine how the interaction is classified and if a detention has occurred.

The focus of search and seizure law remains on the delicate balance of protecting the right of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and protecting the safety of our citizens and police officers by allowing police to make limited intrusions on citizens while investigating crime. In assessing the lawfulness of citizen/police encounters, a central, threshold issue is whether ... the citizen-subject has been seized.

The first level of interaction 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 to respond. The second, an ‘investigative detention’ must be supported by a 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.

* * *

When initially evaluating the level of interaction between law enforcement and a citizen to determine if a seizure occurred, courts conduct an objective examination of the totality of the surrounding circumstances.

The totality-of-the-circumstances test is ultimately centered on whether the suspect has in some way been restrained by physical force or show of coercive authority. Under this test, no single factor controls the ultimate conclusion as to whether a seizure occurred —to guide the inquiry, the United States Supreme Court and this Court have employed an objective test entailing a determination of whether a reasonable person would have felt free to leave or otherwise terminate the encounter. What constitutes a restraint on liberty prompting a person to conclude that he is not free to leave will vary, not only with the particular police conduct at issue, but also with the setting in which the conduct occurs.

Commonwealth v. Thomas , 273 A.3d 1190, 1195–97 (Pa. Super. 2022), appeal denied , 2022 WL 3223306 (Pa. filed Aug. 10, 2022) (citations omitted; emphasis added).

Additionally, the following factors indicate that a seizure occurred: "the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of...