Commonwealth v. Froehlich

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. JESSICA AMBER FROEHLICH

No. 606 WDA 2022

J-S42021-22

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

December 21, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

Appeal from the Suppression Order Entered April 22, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0002135-2021

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and COLINS, J. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

OLSON J.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from an order entered April 22, 2022, which granted a motion to suppress filed by Appellee, Jessica Amber Froehlich. The Commonwealth contends that the suppression court abused its discretion or committed an error of law in granting Appellee's motion. We affirm in part, vacate, in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this memorandum.

The following facts were revealed at the December 14, 2021 suppression hearing. On August 13, 2021, Officer Michael Attalla and Officer Michael Cacchione of the Erie Police Department were on duty near East 6th Street and Perry Street in Erie, Pennsylvania. N.T. Suppression Hearing, 12/14/21, at 4-5. At approximately 2:04 a.m., the two officers were in a marked patrol vehicle "traveling eastbound on East 6th Street" directly behind a black Ford Escape SUV. Id. at 5. At that time, the officers ran the Ford Escape's registration and discovered it had expired. Id. The officers initiated a traffic stop of the Ford Escape by activating the patrol vehicle's "overhead emergency lights, and sirens." Id. Officers Cacchione and Attalla then approached the Ford Escape simultaneously, with "Officer Cacchione approaching the driver side and Officer Attalla approaching the passenger side." Suppression Court Opinion, 4/22/22, at 5. "Upon [their] initial approach, [the officers] utilized [their] flashlights and illuminated the interior of the [Ford Escape]. At which time, [the officers] observed three females inside the vehicle," one in the driver's seat, one in the passenger's seat, and one, Appellee, "in the back seat alone." N.T. Suppression Hearing, 12/14/21, at 6.

The suppression court summarized the officers' subsequent interaction with the occupants of the Ford Escape, including Appellee, as follows:

Immediately upon reaching the vehicle, Officer Attalla is heard ask[ing:] "Do you have any [identification] on you[?]" It is not entirely clear from the footage, but that inquiry appears to be directed to the occupant of the front passenger seat. At approximately the same time, Officer Cacchione can be heard telling the driver that he stopped her because her [registration] was expired. Officer Attalla then proceeded to ask [Appellee,] who was seated in the rear seat on the driver's side, "What [is] up with your friend up here?" [Appellee] responded to Officer's question laughing and saying, "Sorry, what?" At that point, Officer Attalla noticed a gun in the seat pocket of the passenger seat and is heard to say[, "Hey, Officer Cacchione,] we got a 26^[fn*3] here. Everyone[,] just keep your hands up. Do [not] move." Immediately thereafter, Officer [Cacchione] asked "Whose gun is that?" [Appellee] responded, "That [is] me. That [is] my gun." Officer [Cacchione] then proceeded to ask [Appellee] if she had a gun permit. [Appellee] responded that she did, and Officer [Cacchione] asked to see it. While Officer [Cacchione] was asking for [Appellee's] gun permit, Officer Attalla opened the rear passenger door and removed the gun from the vehicle. After Officer Attalla [] removed the gun, [Appellee] could be heard to say that she did not think she had her permit with her. While [Appellee] looked for her permit in her purse, the driver inquired about what was going on. Officer Cacchione told the driver, "If [Appellee is] gonna [sic] have a gun in the car she needs a permit to carry the gun." Officer Cacchione then asked "just" for [Appellee's] driver's license. He also obtained the driver's license from the driver of the vehicle and then called in two radio checks - a firearms permit check for [Appellee] and a driver's license check for the driver.

[fn*3] At the suppression hearing, Officer Cacchione testified that the code "26" was a reference to a firearm.

Suppression Court Opinion, 4/22/22, at 5-6 (some footnotes omitted).^[1] The results of the license and firearm checks revealed that Appellee's concealed carry permit had recently been revoked. N.T. Suppression Hearing, 12/14/21, at 12. As such, the officers asked Appellee to exit the vehicle, placed Appellee under arrest, and then searched her person, as well as the purse she was carrying, and discovered a plastic bag containing a small amount of marijuana therein. Id. at 11, 18, and 31; see also Appellee's Omnibus Motion to Suppress, 11/5/21, at 5.

The Commonwealth charged Appellee with firearms not to be carried without a license; obstructing administration of law or other governmental function; possession of marijuana; and possession of drug paraphernalia.^[2] On November 11, 2021, Appellee filed an omnibus motion to suppress. In Appellee's motion, she argued the officers subjected her to an unconstitutional detention when they asked her for documentation supporting her authority to carry a firearm, because, at that time, "the only information in the [o]fficers' possession was that [Appellee] possessed a firearm." Appellee's Omnibus Motion to Suppress, 11/5/21, at 5. Appellee claimed that, based upon our Supreme Court's decision Commonwealth v. Hicks, 208 A.3d 916 (Pa. 2019) and this Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Malloy, 257 A.3d 142 (Pa. Super. 2021), "that information 'was insufficient as a matter of law to establish reasonable suspicion.'" Id., quoting Malloy, 257 A.3d at 155. As such, Appellee asked the court to suppress all evidence obtained from the unconstitutional detention, as well as the subsequent search of Appellee's person and effects. Appellee's Omnibus Motion to Suppress, 11/5/21, at 5.

A suppression hearing was held on December 14, 2021, during which Officers Cacchione and Attalla testified. See N.T. Suppression Hearing, 12/14/21, at 1-38. On February 10, 2022, the suppression court granted Appellee's motion. Suppression Court Opinion, 2/10/22, at 1-4. In particular, the suppression court held that, while the initial traffic stop was valid, the "continued detention and questioning [of Appellee] after the gun was secured[] 'transformed the officers' pursuit of [Appellee's] firearm credentials into an 'inquiry exclusively aimed at collecting evidence of collateral wrongdoing.'" Id. at 4, quoting Malloy, 257 A.3d at 153. Because the officers lacked the "requisite reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to support that continued detention," the suppression court held that Appellee was subjected to an unconstitutional search and seizure. Id. Accordingly, the suppression court granted Appellee's suppression motion, holding that the "evidence obtained as a result of that detention [must be] suppressed." Id.^[3]

Thereafter, on February 28, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a motion for clarification, asking the court to explain which, if any, of the following evidence could be admitted in light of the suppression court's ruling on Appellee's suppression motion:

a. The initial observation of the firearm in question by [Officer] Attalla;

b. The actual seizure of the firearm itself; c. The identity of [Appellee]; and

d. [Appellee's] statements made prior to the initiation of the inquiry.

Commonwealth's Motion for Clarification, 2/28/22, at *2 (unpaginated).^[4] On March 2, 2022, the suppression court scheduled a hearing on the Commonwealth's motion and, on March 9, 2022, the court conducted an in-chambers hearing.^[5] The court issued a supplemental opinion on April 22, 2022, clarifying and finalizing its previous order. In particular, the suppression court stated it "believe[d] that Malloy require[d suppression of] all evidence that was obtained after the officers began an investigative detention into [Appellee's] firearm credentials." Suppression Court Opinion, 4/22/22, at 4. The suppression court held that the investigative detention began after Officer Cacchione asked: "Whose gun is that?" Id. at 8. As such, the court clarified that its suppression order included Appellee's identification, Appellee's admission that the firearm was hers, the firearm, and the results of the firearm license check. Id. at 8-9 (emphasis omitted). The court, however, explained the following evidence was not subject to suppression:

a. [T]he initial observation of the firearm in question by [Officer] Attalla[;]

b. [T]he observation of and the seizure of the firearm in question[;]

c. [T]he observations of the officers about the appearance of [Appellee; and]

d. [Appellee's] statements made [prior] to Officer Cacchione's question "Whose gun is that[?"]

Id. at 9 (emphasis omitted).

On May 20, 2022, the Commonwealth timely filed a notice of appeal from the suppression court's April 22, 2022 order and, within it, the Commonwealth properly certified that the order "terminate[d] or substantially handicap[ped] the prosecution." Commonwealth's Notice of Appeal, 5/20/22, at 1; see also Pa.R.A.P. 311(d).^[6] The Commonwealth raises the following issue on appeal:

Whether the [suppression] court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion by finding that the Commonwealth violated [Appellee's] rights under the Pennsylvania and United States['] Constitutions when, after [Appellee's] firearm was seized during a vehicle stop, the Commonwealth continued to question [Appellee] as to [her] identity and made [an] inquiry into the status of [Appellee's] firearm licensing?

Commonwealth's Brief at 3.

Herein the Commonwealth argues that, upon conducting a valid traffic stop and subsequently...