Commonwealth v. Watkins

304 A.3d 364

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Zahir Deshon WATKINS, Appellant

No. 2209 EDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted June 6, 2022

Filed September 29, 2023

Reargument Denied December 7, 2023

Christa S. Dunleavy, Doylestown, for appellant.

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

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

OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:

Whether use of a License Plate Reader ("LPR") system to track Appellant's movements is a search under the Fourth Amendment is a question of first impression before this Court. The purpose a license plate attached to a vehicle is to provide information, and such license plate is in plain view when the vehicle is operated on the roadways. Thus we find there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, and such use of the LPR is not a search.

Zahir Deshon Watkins appeals from the September 27, 2021 aggregate judgment of sentence of time-served to 23 months’ imprisonment imposed after he was found guilty in a bench trial of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance ("PWID"), possession of a controlled substance, possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving on roadways laned for traffic – driving within single lane. ¹ After careful review, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

The trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case as follows:

On April 22, 202[0], Philadelphia Police Officer Anthony Mergiotti ("[Officer] Mergiotti") informed the Bensalem Township Police Department [ ] of a suspect believed to be selling narcotics at [a convenience store] located on [ ] Hulmeville Road [in] Bensalem Township[, Pennsylvania]. [Officer] Mergiotti provided the Bensalem [Township] Police Department with the suspect's vehicle registration information: a Volkswagen with license plate number LFR[XXXX]. Officer Brian Bielecki ("[Officer] Bielecki") of the Bensalem [Township] Police Department subsequently entered this registration information into the Bensalem [Township] Police Department's License Plate Reader ("LPR") system. Upon entering this license plate into the database, [Officer] Bielecki discovered that the vehicle frequently traveled on the roadways near the Bensalem Township high school.

On June 17, 202[0], Officer Connor Farnan ("[Officer] Farnan"), Officer Tyson Mathew ("[Officer] Mathew"), and [Officer] Bielecki from the Special Investigations Unit ("SIU") of the Bensalem [Township] Police Department were in the Bristol Pike area [of Bensalem Township] in an unmarked vehicle conducting surveillance [for] an unrelated investigation. At approximately 7:44[ p.m., Officer] Bielecki received an email alert that the vehicle with the license plate LFR[XXXX] recently passed Bensalem [Township] High School, traveling southbound on Hulmeville Road. The three officers discussed this development and decided to locate the vehicle and gather evidence to corroborate the information received from [Officer Mergiotti] pertaining to [the vehicle's] involvement in suspected drug sales.

The officers found the vehicle and began to follow. At the time, the three officers did not intend to complete a vehicle stop. However, as they pursued the vehicle on Bristol Pike, the three officers observed the vehicle leave the lane of travel approximately three times, which is a violation of the Vehicle Code. [ See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3309(1).] Due to safety concerns, [Officer] Mathew subsequently initiated a traffic stop. [Officer] Mathew switched on his lights and the vehicle pulled over to the side. [Officer] Mathew then approached the driver's side of the vehicle and spoke with the driver, who was later identified as Appellant. Meanwhile, [Officer] Bielecki approached the front right side of the vehicle and spoke with the only passenger[.]

As he was speaking to [the passenger, Officer] Bielecki detected an odor of burnt marijuana and observed approximately six air fresheners hanging from the rearview mirror. In light of his training and experience, multiple air fresheners are known to serve as masking agents, used to hide the smell of marijuana. [Officer] Bielecki asked [the passenger] if she had any marijuana in the [vehicle,] and she advised him that she had a bowl in her purse. Meanwhile, [Officer] Mathew returned to his police vehicle to check Appellant's license and registration. [Officer] Mathew found no warrants and no outstanding issues. Before returning to Appellant's vehicle, [Officers] Bielecki and Mathew briefly conferred and [Officer] Bielecki informed [Officer] Mathew that he smelled marijuana and that [the passenger] admitted to having drug paraphernalia in her purse.

The officers decided to implement an investigative tactic wherein they ask both occupants to exit the vehicle to be questioned separately. [Officer] Mathew returned to the driver's side and asked Appellant to step out of the vehicle. Appellant refused. At this point, out of concern that Appellant would flee, [Officers] Mathew and Bielecki both reached into the [vehicle] and restrained Appellant: [Officer] Mathew from the driver's side and [Officer] Bielecki from the passenger's side. As [Officer] Mathew restrained Appellant, he smelled raw marijuana emanating from the vehicle. Throughout this process, Appellant informed the officers that he did not consent to [a] search of his car. Several additional officers arrived on scene to assist [Officers] Mathew and Bielecki.

After several minutes, officers physically removed Appellant from his car and, pursuant to Bensalem [Township] Police Department policy, completed an inventory search on scene to ensure the safety of Appellant's belongings. The vehicle was subsequently towed to a secure lot at the Bensalem [Township] Police Department headquarters. On June 18, 2020, Magisterial District Justice Michael Gallagher signed a search warrant for the vehicle. During a search pursuant to the warrant, [Officers] Mathew and Bielecki recovered $1,844.00 in cash, 227.6 grams of marijuana, a digital scale, and plastic baggies. On June 19, 2020, [Officer] Bielecki arrested Appellant pursuant to an arrest warrant.

LPRs are located around Bensalem Township as well as inside of police cars. An LPR records every license plate that comes within its camera lens frame, takes a picture, and uploads the license information (where the car was located when it came into the camera frame) into its database. If one of the captured license plates is expired, or the vehicle has been marked stolen, for example, the system sends an email to an active-duty police officer to inform him or her that the vehicle is nearby and provides its location. Officers can access this database and review a vehicle's LPR history.

Trial court opinion, 12/16/21 at 1-3 (citations to notes of testimony and some footnotes omitted).

Appellant was subsequently charged with PWID and related offenses in connection with this incident. On April 26, 2021, Appellant filed an omnibus pretrial suppression motion challenging the legality of the traffic stop as well as the ensuing search and seizure. Following a two-day hearing, the trial court denied Appellant's suppression motion on August 5, 2021. That same day, Appellant waived his right to a jury and proceeded to a bench trial.

As noted, the trial court found Appellant guilty of PWID, possession of a controlled substance, possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving on roadways laned for traffic – driving within single lane. Appellant was found not guilty of obstructing administration of law or other government function. ² On September 27, 2021, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of time-served to 23 months’ imprisonment. Appellant was immediately paroled. This timely appeal followed on October 25, 2021. ³

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

A. Did the trial court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress where the use of a [LPR system] to track Appellant's movements constitutes a search?

B. Did the trial court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress where the search of Appellant's vehicle was not justified as a reasonable inventory search?

Appellant's brief at 9.

Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a denial of a suppression motion is well settled.

[Our] standard of review in addressing a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion 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.

Commonwealth v. Jones , 121 A.3d 524, 526 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted; brackets in original), appeal denied , 135 A.3d 584 (Pa. 2016).

Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion because the use of historical LPR data to track and locate his vehicle constituted a search subject to the protections of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Appellant's brief at 18.

Relying, in part, on the United State Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Jones , 565 U.S. 400, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012), ⁴ Appellant contends that he possessed "a reasonable expectation of privacy in his daily movements and in being able to drive around in his [vehicle] without being followed." Appellant's Brief at 14-15. Appellant avers that LPR...