Commonwealth v. Hancock

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. TREVONN HANCOCK

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. ROMEO M. TREXLER

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. AARON JAMES FINDLEY

Nos. 1158 WDA 2022, 1159 WDA 2022, 1160 WDA 2022

Nos. J-A11037-23, J-A11038-23, J-A11039-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

June 9, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Suppression Order Entered September 2, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-11-CR-0001280-2021, CP-11-CR-0001117-2021 CP-11-CR-0001119-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI J.^[*]

MEMORANDUM

PELLEGRINI, J.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the September 2, 2022 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County (trial court) granting the motions to suppress filed by Trevonn Hancock (Hancock), Romeo M. Trexler (Trexler) and Aaron James Findley (Findley) (collectively, the Defendants).^[1] We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I.

Following a traffic stop during which two firearms were recovered, the Defendants were each charged with two counts of persons not to possess a firearm and two counts of carrying a firearm without a license.^[2] Hancock was additionally charged with one count of tampering with evidence and Findley was charged with three counts of drug-related driving under the influence (DUI).^[3] The Defendants filed motions to suppress the evidence gleaned from the vehicle stop, arguing that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and were subjected to a prolonged illegal detention for a minor vehicle violation. They contended that no valid probable cause, exigent circumstances, consent or search warrant rendered the search constitutional. The trial court aptly summarized the facts adduced at the suppression hearing:

On or about August 16, 2021, Officer Dalton K. Geisel of the East Conemaugh Borough Police Department performed a traffic stop of a silver Jeep operating without illuminated headlights on Second Street in East Conemaugh Borough. Officer Geisel approached the subject vehicle and spoke with the driver, later identified as Defendant Findley, and requested his driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Defendant Findley provided a driver's license, but failed to provide valid registration or insurance for the vehicle. Notably, Officer Geisel later reported that he detected some signs that Defendant Findley may have been intoxicated while operating the vehicle, including "bloodshot and glassy eyes." Officer Geisel also asked the three passengers in the vehicle to provide identification. None of the passengers provided physical identification, but a Mr. Jashon Gordon identified himself accurately and Defendant Hancock claimed that his name was "Marquis/Marcus Phillips."

Shortly after the traffic stop began, Defendant Trexler's mother, Jacqueline Trexler, arrived on scene and provided Officer Geisel and Detective Deffenbaugh of the East Taylor Police Department, who had arrived shortly before, with the vehicle's insurance information. Officer Geisel, based on signs which he detected at the onset of the stop, believed that the driver, Defendant Findley, might be operating the vehicle under the influence. Officer Geisel removed Defendant Findley from the vehicle, performed a Terry^[4] frisk, and then handcuffed him and ordered him to sit on the nearby sidewalk. Officer Geisel also requested that the

passengers exit the vehicle and performed Terry frisks of each of them, then handcuffed them and ordered them to sit on the sidewalk. Officer Geisel looked into the vehicle through one of the open doors and then asked Ms. Trexler several times for her consent to search it. Ms. Trexler, as the registered owner of the vehicle, provided Officer Geisel with verbal consent for him to perform a search of the car's interior. Officer Geisel retrieved a loaded AK-47 from the backside passenger seat behind the driver that was covered by a jacket. Officer Geisel also found a loaded Taurus 9-millimeter in the trunk of the vehicle, which was accessible from the passenger compartment.

Officer Geisel then performed field sobriety tests for Defendant Findley, but did not detect any additional signs of impairment. Detective Deffenbaugh then transported Defendant Findley to Conemaugh Hospital for a blood alcohol content (BAC) test while Ms. Trexler was permitted to retake custody of the vehicle. Before releasing the vehicle to Ms. Trexler, Officer Geisel secured the aforementioned weapons and also discovered a THC packet, leading him to suspect that one or more of the vehicle's occupants had been under the influence of THC at the time of the stop. This was confirmed by the BAC test performed on Defendant Findley, which showed traces of Delta-9 and Carboxy THC in his system.

Opinion and Order, 9/2/22, at 1-3. The traffic stop was recorded on Officer Geisel's body camera and the footage was introduced as an exhibit at the suppression hearing. The Commonwealth also submitted the transcript of the joint preliminary hearing for Findley, Gordon and Trexler; the Defendants' criminal records; and Findley's toxicology report.

The trial court granted the Defendants' motions to suppress, concluding that Officer Geisel lacked probable cause to arrest the passengers based on Findley's alleged DUI, and that he lacked probable cause to arrest Findley based on his performance on the field sobriety tests. Because the Defendants were improperly detained, the trial court held that Ms. Trexler's consent to search the vehicle was invalid and the evidence uncovered during the stop must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. The Commonwealth timely appealed and it and the trial court complied with Pa. R.A.P. 1925.

II.

The Commonwealth raises two issues^[5] on appeal: whether the trial court erred by failing to determine whether the Defendants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Jeep, and whether it erred in holding that suppression was proper because the search emanated from an illegal seizure of its occupants, notwithstanding Ms. Trexler's consent to search the vehicle.^[6]

Here, the Defendants were detained when Officer Geisel removed them from the Jeep, placed them in handcuffs and informed them that they were being detained but were not under arrest. The law governing investigative detentions is well-settled:

To maintain constitutional validity, an investigative detention must be supported by a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person seized is engaged in criminal activity and may continue only so long as is necessary to confirm or dispel such suspicion. The asserted grounds for an investigative detention must be evaluated under the totality of the circumstances. So long as the initial detention is lawful, nothing precludes a police officer from acting upon the fortuitous discovery of evidence suggesting a different crime than that initially suspected[.] However, an unjustified seizure immediately violates the Fourth Amendment rights of the suspect, taints the evidence recovered thereby, and subjects that evidence to the exclusionary rule.

Commonwealth v. Brame, 239 A.3d 1119, 1127-28 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citing Commonwealth v. Hicks, 208 A.3d 916, 927-28 (Pa. 2019)). In contrast, a custodial detention that is the functional equivalent of arrest must be supported by probable cause under the totality of the circumstances. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928, 931 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted). "Probable cause is made out when the facts and circumstances which are within the knowledge of the officer at the time of the arrest, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the suspect has committed or is committing a crime." Id.

In the context of a vehicle stop, an officer may conduct "mission related" inquiries into the vehicle violations that prompted the stop and incidental matters concerning the safe operation of the vehicle, such as checking the driver's licensure status, the vehicle's registration and insurance status, or whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver. Commonwealth v. Malloy, 257 A.3d 142, 150 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citing Rodriguez v. U.S., 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015)). An officer may ask whether there are weapons in the vehicle, order the occupants of the vehicle to exit the vehicle for officer safety, or, alternatively, to remain in the vehicle until the stop is completed without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Pratt, 930 A.2d 561, 564 (Pa. Super. 2007). Importantly, "[t]he authority to carry out these actions do not, in and of themselves, expand the grounds for detaining or investigating passengers who are merely present in a lawfully stopped vehicle." Id. With this background, we proceed to the Commonwealth's claims.

A.

In its first argument, the Commonwealth contends that the trial court erred by failing to determine whether the Defendants had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the Jeep, as they did not own the vehicle or have Ms. Trexler's permission to use the vehicle. It maintains that a reasonable expectation of privacy is a threshold requirement to seek suppression of the firearms found in the vehicle, and the Defendants had none. Relying primarily on Commonwealth v. Shabezz, 166 A.3d 278 (Pa. 2017), the Defendants respond that they are not required to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy because they were illegally detained before the search of the vehicle took place.^[7] We agree.

It is axiomatic that a defendant seeking suppression of evidence must have standing^[8] and a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area...