Commonwealth v. Randolph

151 A.3d 170

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania Appellee

v.Jason Robert RANDOLPH, Appellant

No. 1246 MDA 2015

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued April 20, 2016

FILED NOVEMBER 16, 2016

Jason S. Dunkle, State College, for appellant.

Michael M. Osterberg, Assistant District Attorney, Bellefonte, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., JENKINS, J., and PLATT, J.^*

OPINION BY JENKINS, J.:

Jason Randolph appeals from his aggregate judgment of sentence of 5½–11 years' imprisonment for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of an instrument of crime.¹ Randolph contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress all evidence that Corporal Brett Hanlon of the State Police seized from a box welded to his motor vehicle following a traffic stop on Interstate 80.

Although Corporal Hanlon obtained valid consent from Randolph to search the vehicle at the scene of the traffic stop, and although the corporal correctly decided to apply for a warrant to search the box, the application failed to establish probable cause that the box would contain contraband or evidence of crime. Therefore, we vacate Randolph's judgment of sentence and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

On March 7, 2013, Randolph was arrested following a traffic stop on Interstate 80 and the execution of the search warrant for the box welded to his motor vehicle. The trial court held a suppression hearing and subsequently entered an order denying Randolph's motion to suppress. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found Randolph guilty of all charges.

On June 14, 2015, the trial court imposed sentence. On June 20, 2015, Randolph filed a notice of appeal. Both Randolph and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Randolph raises three issues in this appeal:

1. Did the suppression court err in holding that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence that [Randolph's] consent to search was not the product of duress and coercion?

2. Did the suppression court err in finding that the search warrant for [Randolph's] vehicle contained sufficient probable cause to justify its issuance?

3. Did the trial court err in permitting the Commonwealth to present hearsay testimony from a trooper in testifying about reports from other troopers that discussed the fingerprint and cell phone analysis?

Brief For Appellant, at 4.

Preliminarily, we address a jurisdictional issue. On June 24, 2015—after Randolph filed his notice of appeal but within ten days after imposition of sentence—the Commonwealth filed a motion to modify Randolph's sentence. On September 18, 2015, the trial court denied the Commonwealth's motion. In this Court, the Commonwealth has moved to quash Randolph's appeal as premature due to the filing of the Commonwealth's motion to modify sentence within ten days after imposition of sentence.

We deny the Commonwealth's motion to quash. Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) provides: "A notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a determination but before the entry of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof." Rule 905(a)(5) applies where a criminal defendant files an appeal followed by the Commonwealth's filing of a timely motion to modify sentence. Comment, Pa.R.Crim.P. 720 ; Darlington, Pennsylvania Appellate Practice, § 905:3. Pursuant to Rule 905(a)(5), we treat Randolph's appeal as timely filed after entry of the order denying the Commonwealth's motion to modify.

In his first two arguments on appeal, Randolph objects to the denial of his motion to suppress. In an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress,

[our] standard of review ... 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. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court, we may 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 record as a whole. Where the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record, [the appellate court is] bound by [those] findings and may reverse only if the court's legal conclusions are erroneous. Where ... the appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of legal error, the suppression court's legal conclusions are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject to [ ] plenary review.

Commonwealth v. Jones , 605 Pa. 188, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (2010).

Corporal Hanlon was the lone witness at Randolph's suppression hearing, and the Commonwealth also submitted a videotape of the traffic stop into evidence. The trial court's findings of fact are consistent with Corporal Hanlon's testimony and the videotape.

Corporal Hanlon, a state trooper for 18 years, was assigned to the Bureau of Emergency Special Operations in the K–9 unit. On the morning of March 7, 2013, Corporal Hanlon's patrol vehicle was parked on I–80. A K–9 dog, Draco, accompanied the corporal in his patrol vehicle. Suppression Hearing ("SH"), at 11–12.

At approximately 10:30 a.m., Randolph drove his Chrysler Town & Country minivan past the corporal's parked patrol cruiser on I–80. Corporal Hanlon initiated a traffic stop because the minivan's windows contained an illegal tint and because he could not see the registration on the license plate. The driver parked the vehicle very close to the fog line. Corporal Hanlon referred to this as "white lining", a technique he has observed drug traffickers use to expedite the traffic stop by discouraging the police officer from approaching the driver side of the vehicle.

Randolph was driving the van along with one passenger. Corporal Hanlon requested Randolph's license, registration, and insurance and returned to his patrol cruiser with these documents. SH, at 14–18.

Corporal Hanlon ran Randolph's information and found that he had a prior drug trafficking conviction. After about twenty minutes, the corporal returned to Randolph's vehicle and directed him to exit the van. The corporal observed that there were no rear seats in the van. While he explained the Vehicle Code violations to Randolph, a second trooper, Trooper Rowland, operating a marked patrol cruiser, arrived on scene and joined the conversation. Corporal Hanlon advised Randolph that he was issuing a written warning and told Randolph that he was free to leave. SH, at 19, 22.

Moments later, however, Corporal Hanlon asked whether he could ask Randolph additional questions about his trip. The corporal did not tell Randolph that he did not have to answer any further questions. Randolph told the corporal that he and his wife had just moved from South Carolina to New Jersey, which was why there were no seats in his van. He said that she had just had a baby, and that he was travelling from Newark, New Jersey to Columbus, Ohio to visit a family member in the hospital. He added that his aunt's grandmother was in a car accident and was hospitalized with a broken leg. When he repeated his account, however, he said that that he was going to visit his aunt instead of his aunt's grandmother. Randolph stated he had no luggage in the van and did not plan on staying the night in Columbus, even though it was a 16–hour round trip. When asked, Randolph could not name the hospital in Columbus that he was visiting. Trooper Hanlon found it strange that Randolph was traveling far away from home without his wife or their baby. Randolph admitted that he had a prior drug-related conviction. Trooper SH, at 23–28.

During this conversation, Trooper Rowland approached the passenger in the minivan and questioned him. The passenger claimed to be from New York, which Corporal Hanlon found strange because Randolph was from South Carolina. SH, at 23–28.

Corporal Hanlon asked Randolph for consent to search the minivan, and Randolph consented. Both Defendant and the passenger were patted down and asked to stand in front of the vehicle. The K–9, Draco, searched the vehicle but did not alert to anything. Corporal Hanlon and Trooper Rowland then searched the vehicle. Corporal Hanlon saw no luggage in the minivan, but he heard multiple cell phones ringing and seized the cell phones. When he checked between the driver and passenger seats, he observed a steel box extending downward from the floor that was welded to the vehicle. The box did not match the remainder of the undercarriage. Suspecting that the box contained drugs, Trooper Hanlon questioned Randolph about the box, and Randolph's demeanor immediately became defensive. The corporal impounded the vehicle and obtained a warrant to search the compartment. SH, at 28–35.

It took considerable effort to open the compartment, which was only accessible through a door underneath the passenger seat of the minivan. The door was battery powered and could only be opened by removing the passenger door and applying power through wires connected to the door. The corporal managed to open the compartment by attaching alligator clips to the door and applying power. Inside the compartment were 550 grams of cocaine and a digital scale. SH, at 35–39.

Preliminarily, Randolph does not dispute that the initial traffic stop was legal. Nor could he, because the evidence demonstrates that Corporal Hanlon had probable cause to believe that Randolph violated the Vehicle Code by driving with tinted windows. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 4524(e)(1) ("no person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sun screening device or other material which does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle through the windshield, side wing or side window of the vehicle").

We conclude that Randolph's consent to search his vehicle was valid, because the traffic stop...