Commonwealth v. Edgin

273 A.3d 573

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Maxwell David EDGIN, Appellant

No. 984 MDA 2020

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: June 8, 2021

Filed: March 22, 2022

Reargument Denied: May 25, 2022

Jason S. Dunkle, State College, for appellant.

Sean P. McGraw, Deputy District Attorney, Bellefonte, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

OPINION BY STABILE, J.:

Appellant, Maxwell David Edgin, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County on June 4, 2020. On appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. For the reasons stated below, we vacate and remand.

Following a hearing on Appellant's motion to suppress evidence, the trial court made the following findings:

1. Joshua Maurer is a patrol officer with the State College Department.

2. Officer Maurer has been with the State College Police Department for 2 years, is experienced in administering standard field sobriety tests, has made over a dozen driving under the influence (DUI) arrests during his tenure, and has dealt with instances of alcohol overdose amongst college students.

3. On May 30, 2018, Officer Maurer was dispatched to a report of an intoxicated driver in State College, Centre County, Pennsylvania.

4. Officer Maurer received information from dispatch that Nick Bradley, a bouncer at Bar Bleu, called 911 at approximately 7:47 p.m. to report a male intoxicated driver.

5. There was conflicting testimony from Officer Maurer and Officer Kenneth Shaffer regarding what was known on the night of May 30, 2018 before the incident which led to the current suppression motion versus what was learned after an investigation was made, and after [Appellant] was in custody.

6. It is clear to the [trial court] that Mr. Bradley observed a male recklessly driving a black F-150 truck northbound on Garner Street towards College Avenue, an area known for its heavy pedestrian traffic. Officer Shaffer testified that in his experience, driving recklessly is often synonymous with driving intoxicated.

7. Mr. Bradley gave the registration of the male driver, and stated he observed damage on the taillights on the rear end of the truck.

8. Raymond Raker also called 911 on May 30, 2018[,] at approximately 8:04 p.m. to report an accident near Shellers Bend. Mr. Raker did not witness the accident.

9. At approximately 7:57 p.m.[,] Julia Rater called to report observing a black F-150 run a red light at Westerly Parkway and Atherton Street, and almost striking another vehicle.

10. While on the phone with dispatch, Ms. Rater followed the truck, and observed it swerving in and out the lane and being driven erratically, in general.

11. Ms. Rater followed the vehicle to 110 Raleigh Avenue where she observed a white male exit the truck wearing a greyish white shirt and blue shorts.

12. Ms. Rater observed the male staggering and stumbling to the garage door, enter a code in a keypad, and then enter the residence through the garage door.

13. Officer Mauer was in a marked vehicle and in full uniform when he arrived at 110 Raleigh Avenue at 8:01 p.m.

14. Upon arrival at the residence, Officer Maurer observed the truck with the damage that had been described by the callers.

15. Officer Maurer also observed air actively leaking from the right rear tire.

16. Officer Maurer's colleague, Officer Stover, arrived at the residence simultaneously to Officer Maurer's arrival, and Officer Shaffer arrived shortly thereafter, at approximately 8:07 p.m.

17. Just before Officer Shaffer arrived, he contacted Ms. Rater regarding her call to 911. When Officer Shaffer arrived, he observed the F-150 truck to have damage on the right side and the rear end. The truck also had dents, scrapes, the mirror was off, and there was a large piece of bark or wood shoved between the rim and the tire.

18. In an attempt to make contact with the male, Officer Maurer and his colleagues announced themselves and pounded on the front door and the rear sliding door multiple times with no response.

19. The officers contacted their lieutenant, Lieutenant Angelotti, who came to the residence.

20. The officers conveyed their concerns about the welfare of the male to Lieutenant Angelotti and inquired about making an entry into the house.

21. Officer Maurer was concerned the male may have had a medical emergency or was injured based on the damage to the vehicle.

22. Officer Shaffer testified Mr. Bradley, the bouncer, believed the male was intoxicated. Officer Shaffer also had concerns the male may have been diabetic, as Officer Shaffer had prior experience with diabetic emergencies.

23. Officers Maurer, Stover, and Shaffer used the rear sliding doors to make entry into the residence at 8:27 p.m. At his time, it was still daylight.

24. The [o]fficers announced themselves loudly and searched the house for the male.

25. The officers found the male asleep in a bedroom on the second floor of the residence.

26. Officer Maurer smelled a strong odor of alcohol, and had to shake the male several times to wake him up, and recognize the officers.

27. After waking the male, Officer Maurer noticed the male's speech was very slurred, his eyes were bloodshot and watery, and he stumbled getting out of bed.

28. The officers called for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) at approximately 8:29 p.m. for overconsumption of alcohol.

29. The male was identified as [Appellant] via his driver's license. Ms. Rater also returned to the residence to identify [Appellant] while he was in the back of an ambulance.

30. After awaking [Appellant] from sleep, Officer Stover put [Appellant] in a wrist lock. Officer Maurer testified that putting a suspect in a wrist lock is standard to protect the officer.

31. Officer Maurer assisted [Appellant] downstairs and led him outside.

32. Once outside, Officer Maurer checked for injuries and proceeded to recite to [Appellant] his Miranda^[1] rights.

33. [Appellant] was then interrogated at the scene.

34. [Appellant] denied driving, and denied that his truck was ever downtown.

35. EMS arrived at approximately 8:47 p.m.

36. When EMS arrived[,] [Appellant] was taken to the hospital.

37. [Appellant]’s consent to a blood draw is not at issue before [the trial court] and testimony surrounding the procurement of [Appellant]’s Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) was not presented, nor was evidence stating [Appellant]’s BAC level presented to [the trial court].

Trial Court Opinion and Order, 11/1/19, at 1-4.² (italics added).

Relying on the factors set forth in Commonwealth v. Roland , 535 Pa. 595, 637 A.2d 269 (1994), which we discuss in detail infra , the trial court reasoned:

When analyzed together, the factors determining whether a warrantless intrusion was justified supports the Commonwealth's argument that exigent circumstances existed at the time law enforcement entered [Appellant]’s home. The gravity of the offense was quite high as there were multiple calls made to 911 regarding a black F-150 driving recklessly in a well-populated area. 911 caller Julia Rater remained on the phone with dispatch while describing the driver erratic driving, near-miss with another driver on the road, his running of a red light, and, finally, his staggering and stumbling demeanor as he exited his car and walked into his home. Ms. Rater's call coupled with Nick Bradley's call reporting a person recklessly driving a truck matching the same description more than adequately expressed [Appellant]’s disregard for the safety of others that evening.

There was a probability [Appellant] was suffering a medical emergency. Law enforcement arrived at [Appellant]’s residence shortly after [Appellant] entered the home. There were at least four marked police vehicles surrounding [Appellant]’s house. Shortly after arriving, the officers announced themselves loudly and pounded on the door. They received no response. Officer Maurer had extensive experience with impaired individuals. Officer Shaffer knew the dangers of over-consumption of alcohol, but also concerned with the possibility that [Appellant] may be having a diabetic emergency. Armed with their experience, Mr. Bradley's report that [Appellant] was highly intoxicated, the information gleaned from the call with Ms. Rater, and the visible damage to [Appellant]’s truck, the officers came to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was either intoxicated or suffering from a medical emergency or both. These details were enough to form basis of probable cause to enter the home. [...]

In consideration of factor four, not only did Ms. Rater provide a detailed account of [Appellant]’s actions as she witnessed them, but she followed him home, witnessed him exit his truck, and enter the residence law enforcement later entered. While Ms. Rater did eventually leave [Appellant]’s residence, the officers arrived approximately five minutes later.

Officer Shaffer testified that when he arrived at [Appellant]’s residence the truck's engine was still hot. It was more than reasonable for law enforcement to believe [Appellant] was in the house.

Finally, the officers’ entry into the house was peaceable as the sliding door they opened to enter the home was unlocked, and the entry was done during daylight hours. [The trial court] concludes there were exigent circumstances present to justify law enforcement's warrantless entry into [Appellant]’s home.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/1/19, at 6-7.

After denying Appellant's motion for suppression of evidence, Appellant proceeded to a non-jury trial on the two DUI counts. On June 4, 2020, the trial court, after finding him guilty, sentenced Appellant, inter alia, to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000.00, and imposed no additional sentence on the second DUI count.³ This appeal followed.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

Did the suppression [court] err in holding that the warrantless entry and search of [Appellant]’s residence did not violate [Appellant]’s constitutional rights, as set forth in Fourth

...