Commonwealth v. Hall

1

2023 PA Super 224

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JACQUAY T. HALL Appellant

No. 718 WDA 2022

No. J-A15044-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

November 3, 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 18, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at CP-02-CR-0004956-2021

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. ^[*]

OPINION

MURRAY, J.

Jacquay T. Hall (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his jury conviction of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, accidents involving death or personal injury, accidents involving damage to an attended vehicle or property, and false reports by reporting an offense that did not occur.^[1] After careful review, we affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence.

Relevant to this appeal, the facts established at the suppression hearing are not in dispute. On April 26, 2021, at around 4:00 a.m., Pittsburgh Police Officer Phillip Szalla and his partner, Officer Zachary Swarrow, observed a 2014 Nissan Altima exceeding the speed limit in a residential area. When the officers initiated a traffic stop, the Nissan pulled to the side of the road with its brake lights engaged. However, the vehicle was not placed in "park." As the officers exited their vehicle, the Nissan fled the scene. The officers issued a radio alert about the incident and began canvassing the area.

Minutes later, Officers Szalla and Swarrow received an emergency call about a nearby motor vehicle accident. Arriving at the scene, they found an accident involving the Nissan Altima that fled their traffic stop. The Nissan had collided, head-on, with a sport utility vehicle (SUV). The two occupants of the SUV stood outside their vehicle. After speaking with the SUV's occupants, the officers approached the Nissan to check for injured passengers. Upon opening the driver's door, Officer Szalla saw, in plain view, a firearm on the driver's floorboard; a cell phone on the driver's seat;^[2] and a small amount of marijuana near the gearshift. Because the Nissan was disabled and obstructing traffic, the officers arranged to have the vehicle towed. For safety reasons, the officers seized the firearm prior to towing.

The officers subsequently discovered the Nissan was registered to Appellant. Officers went to Appellant's house between 5:00 and 6:00 a.m. that morning, but no one answered the door. At about 9:00 a.m., Appellant called police and reported that his Nissan had been stolen. Appellant also told police that his cell phone was in the Nissan. According to Appellant, only he knew the passcode to unlock the cell phone.

Police applied for a search warrant for the contents of Appellant's cell phone. The warrant application, submitted by Officer Swarrow, identified the following material as the items to be searched:

All data with time stamps including personal communications in the form of text, writings, phone numbers, contacts, call history, SMS messages, images or videos contained in the devices as well as information stored, and/or attached to the body of the phone associated with Gray iPhone with black and blue case.

Omnibus Pretrial Motion, 10/14/2021, Exh. B at 1.

Officer Swarrow's affidavit of probable cause, attached to the warrant application, detailed the scope of the requested search of the cell phone:

I am respectfully requesting a search warrant for the Gray iPhone with black and blue case recovered from the driver's seat of the vehicle during the incident on 04/26/2021. I am requesting to search any texts, calls or other media[-]related application that have time stamped messages and information to assist with my investigation to find out the driver of the vehicle. Based on this warrant, I am requesting a search of Gray iPhone with black and blue case for all and any time stamped information or data stored within the body of the cell phone[], to include [SIM] card and phone memory, including any contacts, phone numbers, messages instant or text, all pictures and all video stored. Incoming and outgoing calls, carrier IP Number and voice messages and missed calls. Along with any data which is related to the distribution, sale or arrangement of drug transactions contained within the cell phone[].

Id. at 3.

Upon approval of the search warrant, police extracted data from the cell phone implicating Appellant in the head-on collision and flight from the prior traffic stop. Officers learned from the phone's data that several outgoing calls were made after the Nissan was purportedly stolen. One call lasted 35 minutes and was made to a one of the phone's saved contacts. Extracted cell phone data rebutted Appellant's claim that his vehicle had been stolen and driven by someone else at the time of the traffic stop and collision.

Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence recovered from his cell phone and Nissan. Suppression Motion, 10/14/21. Appellant claimed officers lacked probable cause or exigent circumstances to seize the items from his vehicle. Id. ¶¶ 9-11. According to Appellant, the items were not in plain view, as officers had no lawful right to open the vehicle's door and look inside. Id. at ¶¶ 16-17. Appellant further claimed police had no basis to search the contents of his phone, and the search warrant was unconstitutionally overbroad. Id. ¶¶ 27-31.

The trial court conducted a suppression hearing on October 28, 2021. Following the hearing, the suppression court denied Appellant's motion. See N.T. (Findings and Conclusions), 11/18/2021, at 9. The court found the Nissan's driver had fled the scene and "the car was left abandon[ed], thus relinquishing a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle." Id. at 7. The suppression court further found officers had opened the Nissan's door "to ensure there was no one inside or injured in the vehicle"; "observed in plain view the firearm in question laying on the driver's side floor board"; and "observed the marijuana on or near the center console, and the cell phone, which was on the driver's side seat." Id. The suppression court explained,

the car was properly towed and the search warrant applied for. The police were authorized to [tow the vehicle] by the City of Pittsburgh Police policy, as well as Title 75 [Pa.C.S.A. §] 3352(c)(5) and 3352(b) to tow an abandoned vehicle obstructing traffic, and also a danger to the flow of traffic.

Id. at 7-8.

The suppression court further found the seizure of the firearm was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. Id. at 8. Additionally, the suppression court found any illegality related to the seizure would have been cured by the firearm's inevitable discovery pursuant to an inventory search. See id.

As to the search of the cell phone's data, the court found

the cell phone was found abandoned in the vehicle and likely contained evidence of the owner or user of that phone at or around the time of the crimes in question.

Id. at 9. The suppression court ruled the search warrant was not overbroad. Id.

The case proceeded to trial. A jury convicted Appellant of the above offenses, and the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate prison term of one to two years, followed by one year of probation. Appellant timely filed the instant appeal. Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant presents the following issues for review:

I. Whether the suppression court erred in denying [Appellant's] omnibus pre-trial motion to suppress the gun and cell phone, where the police searched his vehicle without a warrant and there were no exigent circumstances?

II. Whether the suppression court erred in denying [Appellant's] omnibus pre-trial motion to suppress the cell phone, where the search warrant failed to establish probable cause and the warrant was impermissibly broad?

Appellant's Brief at 6 (capitalization modified).

Appellant first argues the suppression improperly denied suppression of the firearm, cell phone and marijuana police found inside the Nissan. Id. at 15. Appellant claims "police did not have exigent circumstances to justify their warrantless entry and search of" the Nissan. Id. Appellant disputes the finding that officers opened the vehicle's door "to ensure there were no injured occupants inside." Id. at 16. Appellant relies on Officer Szalla's testimony that, looking through the Nissan's windows, he saw no one inside. Id. Additionally, Appellant claims the occupants of the SUV involved in the crash informed police that the Nissan's driver had fled. Id. Appellant asserts,

[b]ased on the above facts, the officers clearly knew prior to the opening of the Nissan's door that the vehicle contained only one occupant, the driver, and that he was no longer inside but had left the area. As such, there [were] no exigent circumstances justifying the officers' immediate warrantless entry and search of the Nissan.

Id. Appellant contends officers "did not have specific and articulable facts from which to believe [Appellant] needed aid." Id. at 18.

Appellant also claims the suppression court improperly applied the inevitable discovery doctrine. Id. Appellant argues the doctrine does not apply where the search warrant was premised, "even in part, on information obtained from an unlawful search." Id. Appellant points out Officer Swarrow's admission that he did not conduct an inventory search of the Nissan. Id. at 19.

When reviewing a ruling on a suppression motion, our standard of review is well settled:

[W]e are bound by the suppression court's factual findings that are supported by the record [,] but we review its legal conclusions de novo. Our scope of review is limited to the record developed at the suppression hearing, considering the evidence

...