J-S45034-18

____________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

 Appellee

v.

DAMON RESHEA RAMOS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 15 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 28, 2017

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County 

Criminal Division at No.: CP-36-CR-0002252-2015

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OTT, J., and PLATT*, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 20, 2018

Appellant, Damon Reshea Ramos, appeals from the judgment of 

sentence imposed after his conviction of possession with intent to deliver a 

controlled substance (PWID), possession of drug paraphernalia, receiving 

stolen property, and possession of a firearm prohibited.1 Specifically, he 

challenges the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

We take the relevant facts from the trial court’s March 20, 2018 opinion.

On April 8, 2015, members of the Lancaster County Drug 

Task Force were preparing to execute a search warrant on 817 

East Marion Street in Lancaster City. (See N.T. Hearing, 

12/20/16, at 4-6). The warrant was obtained pursuant to 

numerous purchases of drugs from [Appellant’s] residence, the 

above-mentioned address, and his automobile, a white Cadillac, 

by a confidential informant. (See id. at 5-6). Although the search 

____________________________________________

1 See 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30) and (32), and 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3925(a) and 

6105(a)(1), respectively.
J-S45034-18

- 2 -

warrant listed [Appellant] as the occupant of the house to be 

searched and the subject of the criminal investigation, the warrant 

did not list [him] as a person to be searched or his vehicle as a 

place to be searched. (See id. at 22-23). To ensure that 

[Appellant] was present in the home at the time the warrant was 

executed, [Lancaster County Drug Task Force Detective Todd 

Grager] was directed to conduct surveillance at the residence.

(See id. at 7). [Detective Grager] testified that, although it was 

not necessary, they wanted to have [Appellant] present at the 

execution of the warrant so that he did not have to be located if 

contraband was found in the home. (See id. at 36).

While conducting surveillance of [Appellant’s] residence, the 

officer observed [him] leave his house and get into his vehicle a 

[half-block] away. (See id. at 9, 25, 36-37). Although the officer 

did not observe any suspicious or criminal activity of [Appellant]

as he neared his vehicle, officers approached [him] for the 

purpose of detaining him.[

2] (See id. at 29, 37, 46). Upon 

reaching [Appellant], the officers placed their cars right next to 

and directly in front of [his] Cadillac. (See id. at 46-47). Because 

of the placement of the officers’ vehicles, [Appellant] was unable 

to leave the scene and was ultimately detained.

After detaining [Appellant], the officers demanded that [he]

show his hands. (See id. at 38). Upon reaching the Cadillac, the 

officers observed marijuana in the front pocket of [Appellant’s]

sweatshirt. (See id. at 10). The officers then opened the door of 

the Cadillac and assisted [Appellant] out of the vehicle. (See id.)

Once [Appellant] had exited his vehicle, the officers placed him 

under arrest[, performed a search incident to arrest,] and seized 

the aforementioned marijuana, United States currency, and an 

additional [three and one-half] grams of marijuana [located on his 

person]. (See id. at 52).

Following [Appellant’s] arrest, the officers focused their 

attention to the execution of the search warrant. With [Appellant]

in attendance, the officers returned to 817 East Marion Street and 

began to search the residence. (See id. at 14). There, the 

____________________________________________

2 The Commonwealth concedes that Appellant was detained in his vehicle. 

(See Commonwealth’s Brief, at 6).
J-S45034-18

- 3 -

officers read [Appellant] his Miranda[

3] rights. (See id. at 14). 

[Appellant] was then asked if he had anything in the house, to

which he responded that he had “weed, money and a gun” within 

a locked safe located in his bedroom. (Id. at 15). The officers 

immediately escorted [Appellant] upstairs into his bedroom where 

[he opened the safe for them]. (See id.). When the safe was 

opened, the officers seized the aforesaid contraband.[

4] (See 

id.).

(Trial Court Opinion, 3/20/18, at unnumbered pages 2-3) (footnote omitted; 

record citation formatting provided).

The Commonwealth filed an information against Appellant on June 9, 

2015, charging him with the foregoing crimes. On August 26, 2015, Appellant 

filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from his person, which the 

court denied on March 10, 2017, after a hearing. On September 19, 2017, at 

the conclusion of his waiver trial, the trial court convicted Appellant of all four 

charges. On November 28, 2017, the court sentenced him to an aggregate 

term of not less than five nor more than ten years’ incarceration. Appellant 

timely appealed.5

____________________________________________

3 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

4 The firearm located in the safe had been reported stolen to the Manheim 

Borough Police Department. (See Police Criminal Complaint, 4/08/15, at 2, 

5).

5 Appellant filed a timely concise statement of errors complained of on appeal 

on January 19, 2018, pursuant to the trial court’s order. See Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b). The court filed an opinion on March 20, 2018. See Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a).
J-S45034-18

- 4 -

Appellant raises one question for this Court’s review: “[Whether] the 

trial court err[ed] in denying [Appellant’s] motion to suppress where the police 

did not have reasonable suspicion to stop and detain [him] on April 8, 2015, 

in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the federal 

constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?” 

(Appellant’s Brief, at 4) (some capitalization omitted).

Our standard of review of this matter is well-settled:

Our standard of review on appeal of the denial of a motion

to suppress is to determine whether the certified record supports 

the suppression court’s factual findings and the legitimacy of the 

inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings. We 

consider only the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses and so 

much of the defense as, fairly read in the context of the record as 

a whole, remains uncontradicted. If the record supports the 

factual findings of the suppression court, we reverse only if there 

is an error in the legal conclusions drawn from those factual 

findings.

Commonwealth v. Gould, 187 A.3d 927, 934 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations 

and quotation marks omitted).

“The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, 

Section 8 of our state Constitution protect citizens from unreasonable searches

and seizures. To effectuate these protections, the exclusionary rule bars the 

use of illegally obtained evidence in state prosecutions in order to deter illegal 

searches and seizures.” Commonwealth v. McCleary, ___ A.3d ___, 2018 

WL 3375265, at *2 (Pa. Super. filed July 10, 2018) (citations omitted).

Here, Appellant argues that the trial court should have suppressed the 

contraband seized from his person where “[his] initial detention . . . within his 
J-S45034-18

- 5 -

vehicle was unlawful because the [o]fficers did not have the requisite probable 

cause and/or reasonable suspicion to seize him prior to serving the search 

warrant on the residence.” (Appellant’s Brief, at 11). We disagree.

The three levels of interaction between citizens and police 

are: mere encounter, investigative detention, and custodial 

detention.

A mere encounter can be any formal or 

informal interaction between an officer and a citizen, 

but will normally be an inquiry by the officer of a 

citizen. The hallmark of this interaction is that it 

carries no official compulsion to stop or respond.

In contrast, an investigative detention, by 

implication, carries an official compulsion to stop and 

respond, but the detention is temporary, unless it 

results in the formation of probable cause for arrest, 

and does not possess the coercive conditions 

consistent with a formal arrest. Since this interaction

has elements of official compulsion[,] it requires 

reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. In further 

contrast, a custodial detention occurs when the 

nature, duration and conditions of an investigative 

detention become so coercive as to be, practically 

speaking, the functional equivalent of an arrest.

Commonwealth v. Edwards, ___ A.3d ___, 2018 WL 3910695, at **3-4 

(Pa. Super. filed Aug. 16, 2018) (citation omitted).

In Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), the police were getting 

ready to execute a search warrant for narcotics at a residence, when they 

observed Summers, the named subject of the search warrant, on the front 

steps, leaving the residence. See Summers, supra at 693. The officers 

detained Summers, searched him, and brought him into the house while they 

served the search warrant. See id. Summers moved to suppress heroin 
J-S45034-18

- 6 -

found on his person, the trial court granted the motion, and the Michigan Court 

of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. See id. In reversing 

the Michigan Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court held that “for 

Fourth Amendment purposes, . . . a warrant to search for contraband founded 

on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the 

occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.” Id. at 705 

(footnotes omitted). The Supreme Court reasoned:

Of prime importance in assessing the intrusion is the fact 

that the police had obtained a warrant to search respondent’s 

house for contraband. A neutral and detached magistrate had 

found probable cause to believe that the law was being violated in 

that house and had authorized a substantial invasion of the 

privacy of the persons who resided there. The detention of one of 

the residents while the premises were searched, although 

admittedly a significant restraint on his liberty, was surely less 

intrusive than the search itself. Indeed, we may safely assume 

that most citizens—unless they intend flight to avoid arrest—

would elect to remain in order to observe the search of their 

possessions. Furthermore, the type of detention imposed here is 

not likely to be exploited by the officer or unduly prolonged in 

order to gain more information, because the information the 

officers seek normally will be obtained through the search and not 

through the detention. Moreover, because the detention in this 

case was in respondent’s own residence, it could add only 

minimally to the public stigma associated with the search itself 

and would involve neither the inconvenience nor the indignity 

associated with a compelled visit to the police station. . . .

In assessing the justification for the detention of an 

occupant of premises being searched for contraband pursuant to 

a valid warrant, both the law enforcement interest and the nature 

of the articulable facts supporting the detention are relevant. 

Most obvious is the legitimate law enforcement interest in 

preventing flight in the event that incriminating evidence is found. 

Less obvious, but sometimes of greater importance, is the interest 

in minimizing the risk of harm to the officers. Although no special 

danger to the police is suggested by the evidence in this record, 
J-S45034-18

- 7 -

the execution of a warrant to search for narcotics is the kind of 

transaction that may give rise to sudden violence or frantic efforts 

to conceal or destroy evidence. The risk of harm to both the police 

and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise 

unquestioned command of the situation. Finally, the orderly 

completion of the search may be facilitated if the occupants of the 

premises are present. Their self-interest may induce them to 

open locked doors or locked containers to avoid the use of force 

that is not only damaging to property but may also delay the 

completion of the task at hand.

Id. at 701-03 (quotation marks, citations, and footnotes omitted).

In Commonwealth v. Reicherter, 463 A.2d 1183 (Pa. Super. 1983), 

police encountered Reicherter in a vehicle several blocks from his residence 

when they were on the way to his home to conduct a search. See Reicherter, 

supra at 1184. The police detained and frisked him, and discovered an illegal 

handgun on his person. See id. A panel of this Court concluded, based on 

Summers, that Reicherter’s detention, and the subsequent seizure of 

evidence in his possession, was lawful. See id. at 1185.

Here, the police had a search warrant to search Appellant’s home for 

contraband. Appellant was the named occupant of the residence to be 

searched, and was the subject of the investigation. Detective Grager, who 

was conducting surveillance immediately before the execution of the search 

warrant to ensure that Appellant, the subject of the investigation, was 

present, observed him leave his front porch and get into a vehicle. Police 

detained him as he sat in the car, a very short time after leaving his house, 

and he accompanied them into his home, where he identified, and provided 

access to, the locked contraband.
J-S45034-18

- 8 -

Based on Summers and Reicherter, we conclude that the police were 

authorized to detain Appellant while his residence was searched. See 

Summers, supra at 705; Reicherter, supra at 1185. Therefore, because 

the record supports the factual findings of the trial court and it properly applied 

the law, it did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress.6 See Gould, 

supra at 934. Appellant’s issue lacks merit.

____________________________________________

6 We also agree with the trial court’s observation that:

[Appellant’s] reliance on Commonwealth v. GrazianoConstantino, 718 A.2d 746 (Pa. 1998), Commonwealth v. 

Eichelberger, 508 A.2d 589 (Pa. Super. 1986)[, appeal denied, 

531 A.2d 427 (Pa. 1987)], Commonwealth v. Luddy, 422 A.2d 

601 (Pa. Super. 1980)[, cert denied, 454 U.S. 825 (1981)] and 

Commonwealth v. Melendez, 676 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1996)[,] is 

misplaced. [(See Appellant’s Brief, at 12-13)]. The facts here 

are distinguishable from the detention in Graziano-Constantino,

as the detention there occurred two and a half miles away from 

the premises to be searched. [See Graziano-Constantino, 

supra at 747.] In Eichelberger, police performed a [] search 

[of] the defendant after he was detained pursuant to a search 

warrant and found drugs. The Court invalidated the search, 

concluding that the police could not articulate facts to infer that 

the defendant was armed and dangerous. [See] Eichelberger, 

[supra] at 592. Most importantly, [however,] there was no 

analysis of whether the initial detention was valid under the 

Summers rationale. The same is true for Luddy, where the Court 

invalidated the search of a defendant found outside the home 

during the execution of the warrant. [See Luddy, supra at 550.] 

Lastly, no warrant had been issued prior to the defendant’s arrest 

in Melendez. [See Melendez, supra at 227.] None of these 

cases specifically address[es] the facts of this case and for that 

reason, the [c]ourt determines that they are unpersuasive in 

resolving this issue. . . .

(Trial Ct. Op., 3/10/17, at unnumbered pages 5-6). 
J-S45034-18

- 9 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/20/2018