J-S66043-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: K.R.T., a Minor, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

APPEAL OF: K.R.T., :

:

Appellant : No. 512 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Dispositional Order entered on January 8, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of York County,

Juvenile Division, No. CP-67-JV-0000502-2013

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 26, 2014

K.R.T. (d.o.b. 1/2/96) appeals from the Dispositional Order entered 

after he was adjudicated delinquent of possession with intent to deliver a 

controlled substance (“PWID”).1 We affirm.

The juvenile court previously set forth the facts underlying this appeal, 

in its Order entered on November 8, 2013, as follows:

Officer [Jason] Dibble [of the York Area Regional Police 

Department] testified that on May 5th, 2013, he was in uniform 

and on duty, and at around 4:30 [p.m.,] when he came onto 

duty, he was informed that there was a missing child who had a 

302 warrant.[2] As a result of that information, [Officer Dibble] 

went to [K.R.T.’s] residence ... to speak with his mother. She 

 

1 See 35 Pa.C.S.A. § 780-113(a)(30).

2

Pursuant to section 7302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act, 50 P.S. 

§ 7302, a “302” involuntary commitment warrant may be issued “[u]pon 

written application by a physician or other responsible party setting forth 

facts constituting reasonable grounds to believe a person is severely 

mentally disabled and in need of immediate treatment[.]” Id. § 7302(a)(1). 

In the instant case, K.R.T.’s mother submitted the application for a 302 

warrant.
J-S66043-14

- 2 -

had given [Officer Dibble] a picture or [K.R.T.] and [] provided 

him with some locations where [K.R.T.] may have been 

[located]. It was determined that [K.R.T.] may be at an 

apartment complex on South Main Street in Red Lion Borough.

[Officer Dibble] went to the location, and [K.R.T.’s] mother 

was [] at the location as well. While [Officer Dibble] was 

investigating, he heard [K.R.T.’s] mother yell, “K[.], stop.” As a 

result, [Officer Dibble] turned and saw [K.R.T.] running down 

the street. A very short foot pursuit commenced. [K.R.T.] [] 

threw his backpack and sat down on the grassy area next to the 

sidewalk where the [backpack] was located. [Officer Dibble] 

testified that the backpack was no more than ten feet from 

[K.R.T.’s] location. [Officer Dibble] stated that [immediately 

after K.R.T. had thrown the backpack and sat down on the grass, 

the Officer] asked [K.R.T.] why he threw the backpack, at which 

time [K.R.T.] stated that he was selling marijuana and that 

marijuana was in the backpack. [Officer Dibble then placed 

K.R.T. in handcuffs.]

[Officer Dibble] testified that he searched the backpack 

incident to arrest. He stated [that] inside the backpack were 

wet clothes, a cell phone, a plastic zip lock bag with ten 

individual packages of marijuana, and rolled up money that was 

located [] with the marijuana. ... [Officer Dibble] also indicated 

[that] he was concerned for his safety. He has been involved in 

the military and [served] in Afghanistan[,] and is well aware of 

the fact that backpacks have been used to detonate devices and 

obviously had some concerns.

Juvenile Court Order, 11/8/13, at 3-4 (footnote added). Additionally, the 

juvenile court stated that another officer had testified that the 28 grams of 

marijuana that was found in K.R.T.’s backpack was possessed with intent to 

deliver. See id. at 5.3 

A few days prior to the November 8, 2013 adjudicatory hearing, K.R.T. 

filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence of the marijuana and the inculpatory 

 

3 K.R.T. does not dispute that he possessed the marijuana with intent to sell 

it.
J-S66043-14

- 3 -

statements he made to Officer Dibble concerning the marijuana. K.R.T. 

averred that the warrantless search was unconstitutional and that no 

exceptions to the warrant requirement applied. At the adjudicatory hearing, 

the juvenile court denied K.R.T.’s Motion to Suppress, finding that (1) the 

search fell under two exceptions to the warrant requirement; and (2) 

K.R.T.’s inculpatory statements did not occur during a custodial 

interrogation, and, therefore, there was no violation of his Miranda4rights. 

See Juvenile Court Order, 11/8/13, at 6-7. At the close of the adjudicatory 

hearing, the juvenile court determined that the evidence established beyond 

a reasonable doubt that K.R.T. had committed PWID, but deferred 

adjudication and disposition pending a case assessment and psychological 

evaluation of K.R.T.

At a subsequent adjudicatory hearing on January 8, 2014, the juvenile 

court adjudicated K.R.T. delinquent of PWID, and imposed probation. K.R.T. 

timely filed a post-adjudication Motion, challenging, inter alia, the court’s 

denial of the Motion to Suppress. Following a hearing, the juvenile court 

denied the post-adjudication Motion, after which K.R.T. timely filed a Notice 

of Appeal.

On appeal, K.R.T. presents the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the [juvenile] court erred in denying [K.R.T.’s] 

Suppression Motion related to the search of the bag in 

that:

a. The search was not done incident to arrest;

 

4 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
J-S66043-14

- 4 -

b. There were no exigent circumstances that required 

the bag to be searched; and

c. The bag was not abandoned by [K.R.T.?]

2. Whether the [juvenile] court erred in denying [K.R.T.’s] 

Suppression Motion related to the statements obtained 

from [K.R.T.], as [] [O]fficer [Dibble] did not give [K.R.T.] 

Miranda [warnings] and quiet time before his custodial 

interrogation[?]

Brief for Appellant at 4 (capitalization omitted).

Our standard of review concerning a challenge to the denial of a 

suppression motion is as follows: 

An appellate court may consider only the Commonwealth’s 

evidence 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 record supports the factual findings of 

the suppression court, the appellate court is bound by those 

facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn 

therefrom are in error. [T]he appellate court is not bound by the 

suppression court’s conclusions of law. 

In re V.C., 66 A.3d 341, 350-51 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted); see 

also In the Interest of L.J., 79 A.3d 1073, 1080 n.6 (Pa. 2013) (stating 

that “our standard of review is highly deferential with respect to the 

suppression court’s factual findings and credibility determinations.”).

K.R.T. first argues that the juvenile court erred in denying his Motion 

to Suppress the marijuana found in his backpack because Officer Dibble did 

not have a warrant to search the backpack,5and no exception to the warrant 

requirement applies. See Brief for Appellant at 10-14. K.R.T. contends that 

 

5 K.R.T. does not dispute that Officer Dibble had a valid 302 warrant to take 

K.R.T. into custody for a medical evaluation or that the arrest was valid.
J-S66043-14

- 5 -

(1) the search was not conducted incident to arrest; (2) there were no 

exigent circumstances presented in this case that required a search of the 

backpack; and (3) the backpack was not abandoned by K.R.T. Id. at 10-14.

“As a general rule, for a search to be reasonable under the Fourth 

Amendment or Article I, Section 8, police must obtain a warrant, supported 

by probable cause and issued by an independent judicial officer, prior to 

conducting the search.” Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102, 107 (Pa. 

2014). However, “[n]ot every search must be conducted pursuant to a 

warrant, for the Fourth Amendment bars only unreasonable searches and 

seizures. While a search is generally not reasonable unless executed 

pursuant to a warrant, the Supreme Court of the United States and [the 

Pennsylvania Supreme] Court have recognized exceptions to the warrant 

requirement.” Commonwealth v. Taylor/Mahone, 771 A.2d 1261, 1266

(Pa. 2001) (citation omitted). One well-recognized exception is a search 

conducted incident to a lawful arrest. See Commonwealth v. Stem, 96 

A.3d 407, 410 (Pa. Super. 2014). Additionally, a warrant is not required to 

search personal property that an individual has voluntarily abandoned. See 

Commonwealth v. Sodomsky, 939 A.2d 363, 366-67 (Pa. Super. 2007) 

(stating, inter alia, that “when an individual evidences an intent to relinquish 

control over personal property, he or she has abandoned a privacy interest 

in property and cannot object to any ensuing search of the item by police.”).

In the instant case, the juvenile court determined that although Officer 

Dibble did not have a warrant to search K.R.T.’s backpack, the search was 
J-S66043-14

- 6 -

legal because it fell under the search incident to arrest exception to the 

warrant requirement, and a warrant was not required because K.R.T. had 

voluntarily abandoned the backpack. 

We will first address the search incident to arrest exception, which 

“permits an arresting officer without a warrant to search an arrestee’s 

person and the area within his immediate control only for personal property 

immediately associated with the arrestee.” Stem, 96 A.3d at 410 (citing, 

inter alia, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969) (holding that 

where a search is conducted pursuant to a lawful arrest, “[t]here is ample 

justification ... for a search of the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his 

immediate control’ – construing that phrase to mean the area from within 

which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.”)). 

This Court has explained that the “search incident to a lawful arrest ... 

exception[] to the warrant requirement [] does not depend upon whether 

there is any indication that the person arrested possesses weapons or 

evidence as the fact of a lawful arrest, standing alone, authorizes a search.” 

Commonwealth v. Rickabaugh, 706 A.2d 826, 836 (Pa. Super. 1997) 

(citations and quotation marks omitted).

In the instant case, the juvenile court discussed this exception in its 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion as follows:

As a search incident to arrest, [Officer Dibble] could 

properly search [K.R.T.’s] person and containers within his 

immediate control. A police officer may conduct a search of an 

arrestee’s person and the area within the arrestee’s immediate 

control as a matter of course because of the ever-present risk in 
J-S66043-14

- 7 -

an arrest situation that an arrestee may seek to use a weapon. 

United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 

L.Ed.2d 538 (1977). To facilitate officer safety, a search incident 

to a lawful arrest requires no further justification in order to be 

valid. Commonwealth v. Henry, 358 Pa. Super. 306, 311, 517 

A.2d 559, 564 (1986).

In the instant matter, [] [O]fficer [Dibble] testified that the 

backpack was no more than ten feet from [K.R.T.] at the time it 

was searched. The Officer also testified that he was concerned 

for his safety based on his military background and his 

familiarity with backpacks having been used to carry explosive 

devices to be detonated remotely. The [juvenile c]ourt 

recognizes that the backpack lies in a grey area as it relates to 

the area that may be searched. However, the [c]ourt found the 

Officer’s testimony compelling regarding his experiences in the 

military as it relates to backpacks being used as explosive 

devises. Moreover, we now live in a different time when it is 

common to see backpacks being used as weapons, e.g.[, the] 

Boston Marathon [bombing].[6][K.R.T.], while being chased, 

threw his backpack[,] thereby giving [O]fficer [Dibble] further 

concern regarding the potential contents therein. This 

heightened his concerns regarding his safety. Therefore, the 

[juvenile c]ourt found that the backpack[,] which was located 

within ten feet of the Officer[,] posed a potential danger to him 

and others who were at the arrest scene.

Juvenile Court Opinion, 4/10/14, at 2-3 (footnote added); see also N.T. 

(adjudicatory hearing), 11/8/13, at 43-44. 

We must defer to the juvenile court’s credibility assessment regarding

Officer Dibble’s testimony at the adjudicatory hearing that he had reason to 

be concerned for his and the public’s safety regarding the unknown contents 

of K.R.T.’s backpack, based on the Officer’s prior experience with concealed 

explosive devices while serving with the military in Afghanistan, and the 

 

6 The Boston Marathon bombing on April 15, 2013, wherein a bomb 

concealed inside a backpack was remotely detonated, occurred less than one 

month prior to the incident involved in this case.
J-S66043-14

- 8 -

then-recent Boston Marathon bombing. See In the Interest of L.J., supra 

(stating that “our standard of review is highly deferential with respect to the 

suppression court’s factual findings and credibility determinations.”). 

Moreover, the safety concern articulated by Officer Dibble 

distinguishes the instant matter from the case that K.R.T. relies upon in 

support of his argument: Taylor/Mahone, 771 A.2d at 1271-72 (where the 

police had arrested the defendant and his codefendant while executing a 

search warrant of a convenience store, placed the men in handcuffs, and 

then discovered narcotics in two coats located ten feet away from the men, 

holding that this evidence was not admissible under the search incident to 

arrest exception because “the search of the two coats extended beyond the 

area within [the defendants’] ‘immediate control[,]’” and “[t]here is no 

indication in the record that the police had any reason to believe that the 

men would immediately attempt to secure a weapon or destroy contraband 

contained in the coats.”). Unlike the police in Taylor/Mahone, here, Officer 

Dibble articulated a specific reason why the backpack was a potential safety 

concern, and, as noted above, the juvenile court credited Officer Dibble’s 

justification for why he thought the circumstances necessitated a protective 

search of the backpack. Cf. Taylor/Mahone, 771 A.2d at 1271 (stating 

that “[w]hile the coats did contain contraband, we find that the 

circumstances in the present case did not necessitate a search of the 

coats.”). Accordingly, the juvenile court properly determined that the search 

incident to arrest exception was satisfied in this case.
J-S66043-14

- 9 -

Moreover, we agree with the juvenile court’s determination in its 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion that “[a]ssuming that the search of the backpack 

was not a valid search incident to arrest, it would then fall within the 

parameters of abandoned property.” Juvenile Court Opinion, 4/10/14, at 4. 

The juvenile court reasoned as follows:

It is well settled that no one has standing to complain of a 

search or seizure of property that he has voluntarily abandoned. 

Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 80 S.Ct. 683, 4 L.Ed.2d 

668 (1960)[; see also Sodomsky, 939 A.2d at 367 (stating 

that “a legitimate expectation of privacy is absent where an 

owner or possessor meaningfully abdicates his control, 

ownership, or possessory interest in his personal property.” 

(citation and quotation marks omitted)]. Abandonment is 

primarily a question of intent, and intent may be inferred from 

words spoken, acts done, and other objective facts. 

Commonwealth v. Shoatz, 469 Pa. 545, 553, 366 A.2d 1216, 

1220 (1976) [(where the police responded to a report that the 

defendant and his two coconspirators were acting suspiciously 

and appeared to be readying to burglarize a store, and the men 

fled upon seeing the police and dropped two briefcases, holding 

that the warrantless search of the briefcases, which contained 

illegal weapons, was lawful because the men had voluntarily 

abandoned the property); s]ee also Commonwealth v. 

Johnson, 431 Pa. Super. 291, 636 A.2d 656 (1994) (finding 

that defendant’s placement of a bag of crack cocaine in a tree on 

public property and standing 10-12 feet away constituted a 

conscious attempt to distance himself from the bag in the event 

of police intervention, and accordingly resulted in the loss of a 

reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag). Police pursuit 

does not of itself render abandonment involuntary. United 

States v. Edwards, 5th Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 749 (1971).

Here, [K.R.T.] voluntarily threw the backpack while being 

pursued by [] Officer [Dibble]. By throwing the backpack and 

continuing to flee, albeit for a short period of time, it can 

reasonably be inferred that [K.R.T.] was voluntarily relinquishing 

his control and any privacy interest he had in the backpack.
J-S66043-14

- 10 -

Juvenile Court Opinion, 4/10/14, at 4; see also N.T. (adjudicatory hearing), 

11/8/13, at 44 (wherein the juvenile court judge found that “[i]t’s clear that 

[K.R.T.] intended to relinquish possession [of the backpack] by throwing it 

when running from the [O]fficer.”). We determine that the juvenile court’s 

findings are supported by the record and the law, and discern no error in the 

court’s conclusion that the marijuana seized from K.R.T.’s backpack was 

admissible even though Officer Dibble did not have a warrant to search the 

backpack.

In his second issue, K.R.T. argues that the juvenile court erred in 

failing to suppress his inculpatory statements because, according to K.R.T., 

he was in custody when Officer Dibble questioned him as to why he threw 

the backpack,7and the Officer never read K.R.T. his Miranda rights. See

Brief for Appellant at 15-17. K.R.T. maintains that Officer Dibble had placed 

him in custody at the moment that K.R.T. had stopped for the Officer while 

fleeing, after the Officer yelled to K.R.T., “Stop, police.” Id. at 15. K.R.T. 

contends that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave under 

these circumstances, and, therefore, the questions that Officer Dibble asked 

K.R.T. occurred during a custodial interrogation, requiring Miranda

warnings. Id. at 16. 

 

7 K.R.T. also points out that after Officer Dibble placed K.R.T. in handcuffs 

and found the marijuana in the backpack, the Officer asked him what he was 

doing with the drugs, in response to which K.R.T. admitted he was selling it. 

See Brief for Appellant at 16-17; see also N.T., 11/8/13, at 19-20.
J-S66043-14

- 11 -

This Court has stated as follows concerning custodial interrogations of 

juveniles:

To safeguard an uncounseled individual’s Fifth Amendment 

privilege against self-incrimination, suspects subject to custodial 

interrogation by law enforcement officers must be warned that 

they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may 

be used against them in court, and that they are entitled to the 

presence of an attorney. Juveniles, as well as adults, are 

entitled to be apprised of their constitutional rights pursuant to 

Miranda. If a person is not advised of his Miranda rights prior 

to custodial interrogation by law enforcement officers, evidence 

resulting from such interrogation cannot be used against him. A 

person is deemed to be in custody for Miranda purposes when 

[he] is physically denied of his freedom of action in any 

significant way or is placed in a situation in which he reasonably 

believes that his freedom of action or movement is restricted by 

the interrogation.

In re C.O., 84 A.3d 726, 731-32 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations and quotation 

marks omitted). “Interrogation is defined as police conduct calculated to, 

expected to, or likely to evoke an admission.” Id. at 732 (citation and 

brackets omitted).

In denying K.R.T.’s Motion to Suppress his inculpatory statements, the 

juvenile court reasoned at the adjudicatory hearing as follows:

With respect to the statements made by [K.R.T.], it is clear 

that those statements were not a part of custodial interrogation. 

[O]fficer [Dibble] merely asked [K.R.T.] why he threw the bag in 

question. This was not intensive questioning by the [O]fficer, 

and [K.R.T.] had merely stated that it contained the drugs in 

question.

N.T., 11/8/13, at 44. The juvenile court’s determination is supported by the 

record, which reveals that Officer Dibble testified that K.R.T.’s admission 

that he had marijuana in his backpack was spontaneous and not specifically 
J-S66043-14

- 12 -

responsive to the Officer’s question as to why K.R.T. threw the backpack. 

Id. at 15, 18. Moreover, Officer Dibble testified that he had asked K.R.T. 

why he threw the backpack for safety purposes, not with the intent to elicit 

incriminating evidence from K.R.T, and the juvenile court credited the 

Officer’s testimony in this regard. Id. at 18, 23; see also Juvenile Court 

Opinion, 4/10/14, at 3. Accordingly, we conclude that K.R.T.’s spontaneous 

admission was voluntary, and did not occur during a custodial interrogation. 

Therefore, Miranda warnings were not required, and the juvenile court 

properly refused to suppress K.R.T.’s inculpatory statements.

Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the juvenile court properly 

denied K.R.T.’s Motion to Suppress, and we therefore affirm the Dispositional 

Order entered following K.R.T.’s adjudication of delinquency for PWID.

Dispositional Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/26/2014