Commonwealth v. Ochoa

304 A.3d 390

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Christian OCHOA, Appellant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Christian Ochoa, Appellant

No. 1216 EDA 2022

No. 1217 EDA 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted May 30, 2023

Filed September 29, 2023

Reargument Denied December 11, 2023

William J. Buchanan, Quakertown, for appellant.

Mathew D. Weintraub, District Attorney, Doylestown, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. ^*

OPINION BY DUBOW, J.:

Appellant, Christian Ochoa, appeals from the March 29, 2022 Judgment of Sentence entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas following his conviction of two counts of Possession with Intent to Deliver ("PWID") and related charges. ¹ Appellant challenges the denial of his pre-trial motion to suppress evidence. After careful review, we are constrained to vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for new trial consistent with this opinion.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. In late January 2021, Appellant, a cross-country truck driver, drove a tractor trailer from California to Pennsylvania. On January 29, 2021, Appellant parked the tractor trailer at a truck stop in Allentown. He subsequently rented a white Jeep Wrangler ("Jeep") and drove to Philadelphia to pick up Edith Rodriguez-Cardenas ("Co-Defendant"). ²

At approximately 11:30 PM that evening, Appellant and Co-Defendant drove past Bedminster Township Police Officer James Zukow and Dublin Borough Police Officer Nicholas Swinehart, who were parked in separate patrol vehicles monitoring traffic on Route 313 exiting Dublin Borough into Bedminster Township. Officer Zukow began to follow the Jeep, and Officer Swinehart followed Officer Zukow. The record does not indicate why the officers chose to follow the Jeep.

Officer Zukow observed the Jeep's speed repeatedly fluctuate from the posted speed limit of 55 MPH to approximately 40 MPH. Officer Zukow further observed the driver side tires of the Jeep cross the double yellow lines several times and the passenger side tires pass over the white fog line on several occasions.

After following the Jeep for approximately one to two miles, Officer Zukow activated his overhead lights and sirens and pulled the Jeep over for suspicion of driving under the influence ("DUI"). Officer Swinehart also stopped his vehicle, and his body camera recorded the traffic stop from the time he exited his vehicle until the officers’ search of the Jeep.

The officers approached the Jeep and requested Appellant's license, which he provided. Officer Zukow retained possession of the license for the duration of the traffic stop. Based upon the speed fluctuations, swerving, and Officer Zukow's interactions with Appellant, Officer Zukow suspected that Appellant was impaired and requested that Appellant exit the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests, which Appellant completed successfully. After concluding that Appellant was not impaired, the officer informed Appellant that he had passed the tests. Notably, Officer Zukow did not return Appellant's driver's license, and there is no indication that Officer Zukow told Appellant that he was free to leave. ³

Instead, the officer questioned Appellant, inquiring if he had any illegal substances in the Jeep, and Appellant responded that he did not. Officer Zukow asked Appellant for his consent to search the Jeep. Appellant consented, both orally and by signing the Bedminster Township Search and Seizure Consent Form. The form indicated that Appellant had been informed of his constitutional right to refuse the search. Approximately 13 minutes elapsed between the beginning of the stop and when Appellant signed the consent form.

Because it was a very cold night, Officer Zukow offered Appellant and Co-Defendant the opportunity to wait in Officer Swinehart's patrol vehicle during the search, and Appellant and Co-Defendant accepted. Officer Zukow told Appellant and Co-Defendant that they were not under arrest.

Appellant and Co-Defendant remained in Officer Swinehart's vehicle while Officer Zukow and other officers, who had arrived on the scene, searched the Jeep. The search yielded substantial amounts of controlled substances and U.S. currency. ⁴

Following the search, officers took Appellant to the Bedminster Police Department headquarters, where Bucks County District Attorney's Office Detective Iran Millan interviewed Appellant. Bedminster Township Officer Stephen Pekach was also present during the interview. Ultimately, Appellant signed a waiver of his Miranda warnings, after initially invoking his right to counsel. ⁵

The Commonwealth sought and obtained search warrants for at least three phones based upon an Affidavit of Probable Cause signed by Detective Millan and Officer Pekach. Officers also obtained a search warrant for Appellant's tractor trailer, which resulted in the recovery of substantial amounts of controlled substances and related items. ⁶

The Commonwealth charged Appellant with numerous drug offenses at two dockets. The first docket addressed charges arising from the stop and search of the Jeep, which overlapped with charges against Co-Defendant. The charges at the second docket stemmed from the search of the tractor trailer.

On September 29, 2021, Appellant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion In it, he sought to suppress evidence deriving from the initial traffic stop, which he claimed was not justified, and his consent to search, which he argued was not lawful. Appellant also sought to suppress evidence based upon challenges to his waiver of his right to counsel and the search warrants for the cell phones.

On November 9, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on Appellant's motion to suppress at which Officer Zukow, Officer Swinehart, and Detective Millan provided testimony consistent with the above facts. On January 24, 2022, the trial court denied Appellant's motion to suppress.

On March 29, 2022, Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded to a stipulated waiver trial. Following its consideration of the evidence, the court found Appellant guilty on all counts. ⁷ That same day, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 7½ to 15 years of incarceration for one count of PWID at each docket, with no additional penalty for the other counts.

Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on April 27, 2022. Subsequently, Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Before this Court, Appellant raises the following questions:

1. Did the trial court err by denying Appellant's Motion to Suppress the initial stop and seizure of the vehicle which appellant was operating on January 29, 2021?

2. Did the trial court err by denying Appellant's Motion to Suppress the search of the vehicle Appellant was driving on January 29, 2021 by ruling that the verbal and written consent was not coerced and was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily?

3. Did the trial court err by denying Appellant's Motion to Suppress the search and seizure of the cell phones belonging to Appellant and found in his vehicle by ruling that the search warrants articulated probable cause?

4. Did the trial court err by denying Appellant's Motion to Suppress his January 30, 2021 statements to law enforcement in violation of his rights as protected by Article I, section 8 and 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United State Constitution?

Appellant's Br. at 8-9. ⁸

A.

Each of Appellant's four issues challenge the trial court's denial of his suppression motion. Our scope and standard of review of an order denying suppression are well settled:

[O]ur standard of review for the denial of a suppression motion is de novo and is limited to determining whether the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Our scope of review is to consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the suppression record as a whole. When the sole issue on appeal relates to a suppression ruling, our review includes only the suppression hearing record and excludes from consideration evidence elicited at trial.

Commonwealth v. Green , ––– Pa. ––––, 265 A.3d 541, 550–51 (2021) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Moreover, "[i]t is within the suppression court's sole province as factfinder to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony." Commonwealth v. Luczki , 212 A.3d 530, 542 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

B.

In his first issue, Appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his Motion to Suppress claiming that the initial traffic stop was illegal. It is axiomatic that if a "detention violates the Fourth Amendment, then any evidence seized during that stop must be excluded as fruit of an unlawful detention." Commonwealth v. Mattis , 252 A.3d 650, 654 (Pa. Super. 2021).

Under the Vehicle Code, a police officer has authority to stop a vehicle if he or she "has reasonable suspicion" that a Vehicle Code violation "is occurring or has occurred" for the purpose of, inter alia , "secur[ing] such other information as the officer may reasonably believe to be necessary to enforce the provisions of [the Code]." 75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b). Whether an officer must possess probable cause or reasonable suspicion for a constitutional traffic stop depends on the nature of the suspected violation. See Commonwealth v. Salter , 121 A.3d 987, 993 (Pa. Super. 2015). In the case of DUI, an officer may stop a vehicle if he or she has reasonable suspicion that the driver is operating the vehicle under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances to "provide the officer the needed opportunity to investigate further[.]" ⁹ Id.

Appellant claims that the officers subjected him to an unlawful investigatory detention because th...