J-S12022-15

2015 PA Super 98

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

TAM THANH NGYUEN,

Appellant No. 911 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered March 14, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0003833-2012

BEFORE: BOWES, SHOGAN, and FITZGERALD,*JJ.

OPINION BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED APRIL 27, 2015

Appellant, Tam Thanh Ngyuen, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered following his conviction for possession with intent to deliver a 

controlled substance (“PWID”). For the reasons that follow, we vacate and 

remand.

The following findings of fact, as rendered by the trial court, are 

relevant to our analysis:

1. On January 4, 2012, shortly after 3:00 a.m., Trooper Jared 

Bromberg, an officer with the Pennsylvania State Police, was on 

duty and working patrol along with Trooper Thomas O’Konski 

when he observed a black Mercedes traveling at a high rate of 

speed. N.T., 6/20/13, pp. 21-23. Trooper Bromberg was working 

the 11 P.M. to 7 A.M. shift that evening. Id. at 20.

____________________________________________

*

 Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S12022-15

- 2 -

2. At approximately 3:15 A.M., as Trooper Bromberg was 

driving southbound on Interstate 95 (hereinafter “1-95”), the 

Mercedes drove past the troopers’ patrol vehicle. Id. at 22. 

Upon observing the Mercedes, Trooper Bromberg “clocked” the 

speed of the vehicle by matching its speed for six tenths of a 

mile. Id. at 22. The Mercedes was traveling 73 MPH in a 55 

MPH zone. See Commonwealth Exhibit, C-1, Affidavit of 

Probable Cause. Trooper Bromberg also observed the car 

following too closely. N.T., 6/20/13, p. 29.

3. Trooper Bromberg was in full uniform and in a marked 

Pennsylvania State Police vehicle. Id. at 21.

4. Trooper Bromberg activated his lights and siren in order to 

conduct a traffic stop of the vehicle. Id. at 22-23. The Mercedes 

pulled over onto the right shoulder of the road, between exits 7 

and 8 on 1-95. Id. at 23.

5. Trooper Bromberg, who has been with employed with the 

Pennsylvania State Police for about eight and half years, has had 

extensive police training in the detection of controlled 

substances. Id. at 17-18. Over the course of his career, 

Trooper Bromberg has been involved in hundreds of drug 

investigations, and has investigated controlled substances while 

on patrol approximately 250-300 times. Id. at 18. He has made 

approximately 150 stops along the 1-95 Corridor that have 

involved narcotics. Id. at 29.

6. Following the stop, Trooper Bromberg approached the 

driver’s side of the Mercedes along with Trooper O’Konski. Id. at 

23. Trooper Bromberg identified himself to the driver and 

explained the reason for the stop. Id. at 24. After he obtained 

the driver’s license and registration, he asked the driver to exit 

the vehicle. Id. at 24-25. The driver complied and stood at the 

rear of the vehicle per the trooper’s request. The driver was not 

handcuffed. Id. at 26.

7. Trooper Bromberg observed the driver “moving around 

excessively, “overtalking” and noticed that the driver was “overly 

apologetic” during the stop. Id. at 24, 29.

8. As Trooper Bromberg approached the driver’s side of the 

vehicle, Trooper O’Konski approached the passenger side. 
J-S12022-15

- 3 -

Trooper O’Konski stood at the right side of the vehicle without 

engaging the passenger. Id. at 25.

9. When the driver was asked to step to the rear of the vehicle, 

Trooper Bromberg then walked to the passenger side of the 

vehicle and asked the passenger, [Appellant] herein, for his 

driver’s license. Id. at 26-27. [Appellant] refused to answer the 

trooper’s questions and did not make eye contact. Id. at 27. 

Trooper Bromberg noted that in his experience, this type of 

behavior is consistent with narcotics activity discovered during 

traffic stops. [Appellant] eventually provided his information to 

Trooper Bromberg. Id.

10. Trooper Bromberg then returned to his vehicle and ran both 

the driver and [Appellant’s] information through both NCIC and 

PENNDOT. Id. at 28. [Appellant] came back with “numerous 

prior drug arrests.” Id. at 28.

11. Trooper Bromberg then returned to the Mercedes and issued 

a written warning for speeding and following too closely. Id. at 

29. Trooper Bromberg returned the driver and [Appellant’s] 

paperwork to them. Id. at 29-30. 

12. Trooper Bromberg then told the driver that the traffic stop 

was complete and that he was free to go. Id. at 30. He told him 

“to be careful pulling away.” Id.

13. The driver began walking back towards the front driver’s 

seat of the Mercedes and the troopers walked towards their 

patrol vehicle. Id. at 30-31.

14. Before Trooper Bromberg entered the patrol car, he turned 

around and reengaged the driver. Id. at 31. He explained that 

he had approached his door and the driver had reached the front 

driver’s side door to the Mercedes at this time. Id. at 31. He 

asked the driver if he could ask him some more questions, and 

the driver said yes. Id. at 31. 

15. Trooper Bromberg asked the driver about his nervousness, 

and asked where he had been coming from. Id. at 31-32. He 

also asked about his relationship with [Appellant]. Id. The 

driver answered all of his questions. Id.
J-S12022-15

- 4 -

16. Trooper Bromberg then asked the driver for consent to 

search the vehicle and “all of its contents.” Id. at 33. The driver 

gave consent. Id. at 34.

17. Trooper Bromberg did not use any threatening language or 

draw his gun during this time. The driver and [Appellant] were 

not handcuffed.

18. [Appellant] was asked to step out of the vehicle and was told 

that the driver had given consent to search the vehicle. Id. at 

34.

19. [Appellant] did not make eye contact with Trooper 

Bromberg. Id. at 34. [Appellant] exited the vehicle after Trooper 

Bromberg made a second request. Id. 20. 

20. When [Appellant] exited the vehicle, he stuck his hands in 

his pockets. Id. at 34. Trooper Bromberg asked [Appellant] to 

take his hands out of his pockets and keep his hands visible, and 

he complied. Id. at 34-35.

21. Trooper Bromberg asked [Appellant] if he had any weapons 

on him, and [Appellant] said no. Id. at 35.

22. Trooper Bromberg then asked [Appellant] if he could frisk 

him for officer safety. Id. at 35. [Appellant] said yes. Id.

23. Trooper Bromberg frisked [Appellant] by checking his waist, 

then his pant pocket area. Id. at 35. Upon frisking [Appellant], 

Trooper Bromberg felt a cell phone in his pocket. Id. at 39. He 

asked [Appellant] what the object was and [Appellant] replied 

that it was a cell phone. Id. When Trooper Bromberg felt 

[Appellant’s] right rear pocket, he felt a large amount of cash. 

Id. When he asked [Appellant] what it was that he felt, 

[Appellant] replied that it was cash. Id.

24. In [Appellant’s] right front pocket, Trooper Bromberg felt a 

“soft package” that based upon his experience and training, he 

believed was bagged pills. Id. at 39-40. He asked [Appellant] 

what the object was and [Appellant] said “OxyContin.” Id. at 40.

25. Trooper Bromberg ordered [Appellant] to take the package 

out of his pocket, and [Appellant] complied. Id. at 42.
J-S12022-15

- 5 -

26. When [Appellant] removed the item from his pocket, Trooper 

Bromberg observed “clear, small Ziploc baggies.” Id. at 42. He 

was familiar with these bags from past arrests for narcotics and 

acknowledged that they are commonly referred to as coin bags. 

Id. Trooper Bromberg had seen these types of bags hundreds of 

times before. Id. at 42-43.

27. Trooper Bromberg then handcuffed [Appellant] and placed 

him under arrest. Id. at 43.

28. A search incident to arrest was performed and three bundles 

of cash held together with a rubber band, a cell phone, four bags 

of cocaine, and four jars of crack cocaine were recovered from 

[Appellant’s] person. Id. at 43. The amount of cash recovered 

amounted to $1058.20. Id. at 43-44. Trooper Bromberg 

immediately recognized the substance in the jars to be crack 

cocaine, based upon past arrests. Id. at 43.

29. The court found the testimony of Trooper Bromberg to be 

credible.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/21/14, at 3-6.

Appellant was arrested and charged with PWID,1 possession of a 

controlled substance,2and possession of drug paraphernalia.3 Prior to trial, 

Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence, which the trial court denied 

after conducting a suppression hearing.

Following a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of PWID. At the 

conclusion of trial, Appellant waived his right to a presentence report and 

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).

3 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32).
J-S12022-15

- 6 -

asked the trial court to proceed to sentencing. Appellant was sentenced to 

the mandatory minimum sentence of thirty-six to seventy-two months.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on March 25, 2014. The trial 

court directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement and Appellant 

timely complied. The trial court issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a). 

Appellant presents the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the lower court abused its discretion in denying 

motion to suppress physical evidence, where Appellant’s consent 

to submit to Terry v. Ohio pat down for weapons was coerced, 

during the course of illegal detention that was wholly 

unsupported by reasonable suspicion that Appellant was 

engaged in criminal activity or articulable suspicion that 

Appellant was armed and dangerous, which violated Appellant’s 

right to a fair search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, 

and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution?

2. Whether the lower court abused its discretion in denying 

motion to suppress physical evidence, where police exceeded 

scope of Terry stop, by conducting invasive search for 

contraband, without reasonable suspicion and after ascertaining 

that Appellant was not armed and dangerous, which violated 

Appellant’s constitutional right to a fair search and seizure under 

the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 8 of the 

Pennsylvania State Constitution?

3. Whether the lower court abused its discretion in denying 

motion to suppress incriminating statement, where police elicited 

statement during custodial interrogation, without advising 

Appellant of his Miranda Rights, which violated Appellant’s 

constitutional right against self-incrimination under the Fifth 

Amendment and Article 1, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania State 

Constitution?

4. Whether Appellant was denied a fair suppression hearing, 

where Commonwealth presented evidence of 1) Appellant’s 

consent to submit to pat down and 2) Appellant’s verbal 
J-S12022-15

- 7 -

admission to possessing Oxycontin, without apprising Appellant 

of such evidence, through police affidavits or other discoverable 

paper work, prior to the commencement of the suppression 

hearing?

5. Whether the mandatory minimum sentence of three (3) to six 

(6) years imposed by the trial court should be vacated, where 

the Superior Court, in Commonwealth v. Newman held that 

Pennsylvania mandatory minimum sentencing statutes no longer 

pass constitutional muster, pursuant to the United State 

Supreme Court holding in Alleyne v. United States, that 

mandatory minimum sentencing statutes are unconstitutional 

because they permit the trial court, to increase a defendant’s 

minimum based upon a preponderance of the evidence, rather 

than a jury beyond a reasonable doubt?

Appellant’s Brief at 5-6.

In his first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its 

discretion in denying the motion to suppress physical evidence because the 

Terry4 pat-down occurred during the course of an illegal detention 

unsupported by reasonable suspicion. Appellant’s Brief at 13. Appellant 

maintains that the Trooper’s redirection to Appellant to exit the vehicle, after 

concluding the initial traffic stop and advising the parties they were free to 

leave, was a new interaction requiring an independent showing of reasonable 

suspicion that criminal activity was afoot or that Appellant was armed and 

dangerous. Id. at 18. Accordingly, Appellant argues, because the Trooper 

did not have reasonable suspicion justifying the second interaction, all 

____________________________________________

4 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968).
J-S12022-15

- 8 -

evidence recovered incident and subsequent to the Terry pat-down should 

be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Id. 

The standard of review an appellate court applies when considering an 

order denying a suppression motion is well established. 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. Commonwealth v. Russo, 934 A.2d 

1199, 1203 (Pa. 2007) (citing Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 846 A.2d 

75 (Pa. 2004)). Where the record supports the factual findings of the trial 

court, the appellate court is bound by those facts and may reverse only if 

the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error. Id. However, it is also 

well settled that the appellate court is not bound by the suppression court’s 

conclusions of law. Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Duncan, 817 A.2d 455 

(Pa. 2003)).

With respect to factual findings, we are mindful that it is 

the sole province of the suppression court to weigh the credibility 

of the witnesses. Further, the suppression court judge is entitled 

to believe all, part or none of the evidence presented. However, 

where the factual determinations made by the suppression court 

are not supported by the evidence, we may reject those findings. 

Only factual findings which are supported by the record are 

binding upon this [C]ourt.

Commonwealth v. Benton, 655 A.2d 1030, 1032 (Pa. Super. 1995) 

(citations omitted). In addition, we are aware that questions of the 

admission and exclusion of evidence are within the sound discretion of the 
J-S12022-15

- 9 -

trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. 

Commonwealth v. Freidl, 834 A.2d 638, 641 (Pa. Super. 2003).

“‘Interaction’ between citizens and police officers, under search and 

seizure law, is varied and requires different levels of justification depending 

upon the nature of the interaction and whether or not the citizen is 

detained.” Commonwealth v. DeHart, 745 A.2d 633, 636 (Pa. Super. 

2000). The three levels of interaction are: mere encounter, investigative 

detention, and custodial detention. Id.

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.

Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Reasonable suspicion exists only where the officer is able to 

articulate specific observations which, in conjunction with 

reasonable inferences derived from those observations, led him 

reasonably to conclude, in light of his experience, that criminal 

activity was afoot and that the person he stopped was involved 

in that activity. Therefore, this Court must make an objective 

inquiry, namely, whether the facts available to the officer at the 

moment of the [intrusion] warrant a man of reasonable caution 

in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.
J-S12022-15

- 10 -

Commonwealth v. Plante, 914 A.2d 916, 922 (Pa. Super. 2006) (internal 

citations and quotations omitted).

“To determine whether a mere encounter rises to the level of an 

investigatory detention, we must discern whether, as a matter of law, the 

police conducted a seizure of the person involved.” Commonwealth v. 

Reppert, 814 A.2d 1196, 1201 (Pa. Super. 2002). 

To decide whether a seizure has occurred, a court must consider 

all the circumstances surrounding the encounter to determine 

whether the demeanor and conduct of the police would have 

communicated to a reasonable person that he or she was not 

free to decline the officer’s request or otherwise terminate the 

encounter. Thus, the focal point of our inquiry must be whether, 

considering the circumstances surrounding the incident, a 

reasonable [person] innocent of any crime, would have thought 

he was being restrained had he been in the defendant’s shoes.

Id. at 1201-1202 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

More specifically, our Supreme Court has had the opportunity to 

address investigative detentions in the context of motor vehicle traffic stops. 

In Commonwealth v. Freeman, 757 A.2d 903 (Pa. 2000), a Pennsylvania 

State Police trooper noticed two vehicles traveling fairly close together, 

switching lanes and jockeying for position as if in a “cat and mouse” fashion. 

Id. at 904. The trooper stopped one of the vehicles, which was driven by 

Diana Freeman (“Freeman”), while another officer stopped the second 

vehicle. Id. Freeman’s vehicle contained two passengers. Id. When the 

trooper asked Freeman if she was lost or having a problem with the other 

driver, she explained that she had entered the wrong lane and had 
J-S12022-15

- 11 -

maneuvered to the left lane to continue west on Interstate 80. Id. She also 

denied traveling with the other vehicle. Id. 

While conducting a radio check of Freeman’s driver’s license and 

registration card, the trooper learned from another trooper that the 

occupants of the other vehicle contradicted Freeman by stating that the two 

vehicles were traveling together and further explained that they were 

following Freeman’s car because it was having some type of engine problem. 

Freeman, 757 A.2d at 905. Returning to Freeman’s car, the trooper gave 

Freeman a written warning, returned her license and registration card, and 

informed her that she was free to leave. Id.

The trooper went back to his patrol car but then returned to Freeman’s 

vehicle and again asked whether Freeman was traveling with the second car. 

Freeman, 757 A.2d at 905. When she replied that she was not, the trooper 

informed her that the occupants of the second car had said otherwise, and 

he asked her to get out of the vehicle. Id. Freeman did so and walked to 

the rear of the car. Id. At this point, the trooper asked Freeman for 

consent to search her vehicle, which Freeman granted. Id. The ensuing 

search of the vehicle resulted in the discovery of five bags of marijuana. Id. 

Freeman and her passengers were charged with possession of a 

controlled substance and possession with intent to deliver. Freeman, 757 

A.2d at 906. Freeman filed a motion to suppress, which was denied. Id. 

After being convicted, appeals were filed by the Commonwealth and 
J-S12022-15

- 12 -

Freeman. Id. Freeman’s appeal centered on the failure to suppress and 

was based upon the argument that her consent to a search of the vehicle 

had been tainted by an illegal detention. Id. As the initial stop was deemed 

lawful, the question was whether there had been, in the interaction between 

Freeman and the police officer, a “second” detention that was illegal, 

thereby rendering the granted consent invalid. Id. Our Supreme Court 

concluded that the “second” round of questioning constituted a seizure, 

commenting that:

The transition to and character of the subsequent 

interaction, however, supports the conclusion that Freeman was 

subject to a second seizure. Since the trooper had accomplished 

the purpose of the stop, as he expressly indicated, Freeman 

would have been entirely within her rights to drive away at that 

point. Nevertheless, the trooper’s subsequent actions were 

inconsistent with his statement to Freeman that she was free to 

leave, as he: returned to Freeman’s vehicle; questioned her 

about the second vehicle; pointed out the inconsistent 

statements from the vehicle’s occupants when she denied 

traveling with that vehicle; and, ultimately and most 

significantly, asked her to step out of the vehicle prior to the 

request for consent. ... Moreover, given everything that had 

come before, although these events occurred after express 

conferral of advice that Freeman was free to depart, they would 

have suggested to a reasonable person that such advice was no 

longer operative.

Id. at 907-908.

In Commonwealth v. Moyer, 954 A.2d 659 (Pa. Super. 2008), (en 

banc), this Court was faced with a traffic stop encounter featuring a 

“second” round of questioning and also concluded that the additional 

questioning constituted a seizure. There, Moyer’s vehicle was stopped by 
J-S12022-15

- 13 -

two Pennsylvania State Police troopers when it was observed that the 

vehicle’s taillight had a hole in it. Id. at 661. One of the troopers also 

observed movement within the vehicle near the passenger side floor area. 

Id. After approaching the vehicle, the trooper explained the reason for the 

stop and obtained Moyer’s license and registration. Id. A check of Moyer’s 

background, prompted by the fact that he had bloodshot eyes and acted 

nervous, revealed a previous arrest involving marijuana possession. Id. at 

661-662. A written warning for the taillight violation was prepared, after 

which the officer returned to the vehicle and directed Moyer out of the 

vehicle, showed Moyer the issue with the taillight and told him to have it 

repaired. Id. at 662. The trooper then handed Moyer the warning card and 

told him he was free to leave. Id.

However, as Moyer reached the driver’s door of his vehicle, the trooper 

called out Moyer’s name and asked him if he minded answering a few 

questions. Moyer, 954 A.2d at 662. Moyer was then confronted with the 

information regarding his prior arrest and the trooper’s observation of 

movement in the vehicle. Id. The trooper then asked Moyer if there were 

any drugs or paraphernalia in the car. Id. When Moyer responded 

negatively, the trooper asked him if there were any drugs or paraphernalia 

on his person. Id. Moyer again responded negatively, prompting the 

trooper to ask if he could check the vehicle to make sure. Id. The trooper 

did not inform Moyer that he could refuse the request, and Moyer then 
J-S12022-15

- 14 -

consented. Id. The ensuing search produced two crack pipes, leading 

Moyer to admit that he had consumed crack previously. Id. 

Upon these facts, we concluded that Moyer had been subjected to a 

subsequent custodial interrogation. Moyer, 954 A.2d at 668. In making 

this assessment, we noted:

when an individual has been subjected to a valid detention and 

the police continue to engage that person in conversation, the 

citizen, having been in official detention, is less likely to 

understand that he has the right to refuse to answer questions 

or a search. Furthermore, ... the Court stressed that “conferral 

of the ‘free-to-go’ advice is, itself not a reason to forego a 

totality assessment” and therefore does not constitute a 

controlling factor in assessing whether a person would actually 

credit a police indication that he was free to leave.

Id. at 665 (emphasis in original) (citing Commonwealth v. Strickler, 757 

A.2d 884, 899 n.24 (Pa. 2000)).

In the case sub judice, Appellant does not dispute the validity of the 

initial traffic stop. It appears that the trooper appropriately effectuated the 

stop based upon the motor vehicle code violations he observed. After 

ending the interaction based on the traffic violation, however, Trooper 

Bromberg initiated a second round of questioning with the driver. Thus, the 

question becomes whether this second interaction constituted a seizure and 

whether that subsequent seizure was supported by reasonable suspicion. 

Moyer, 954 A.2d at 665. 

Trooper Bromberg provided the following testimony regarding his reengagement of the driver. Trooper Bromberg testified that after issuing the 
J-S12022-15

- 15 -

warning, the driver “thanked me. Again, he was very apologetic and was, as 

I was explaining, was over-talking, which is nervousness.” N.T., 6/20/13, at 

29. Trooper Bromberg referenced the following exchange with the driver 

after re-engaging him:

I asked him if I can ask him a few questions. He related yes. I 

asked him about his nervousness, about him being very 

apologetic, about moving around outside of the vehicle, how he 

knew the passenger, where they were coming from.

Id. at 31-32. 

When asked on cross-examination why he re-engaged the driver after 

issuing the warning and walking back to his cruiser, Trooper Bromberg 

testified: “I took the totality of the circumstances of the driver’s behavior, 

the passenger’s behavior, and the passenger’s rap sheet.” Id. at 51. 

Trooper Bromberg agreed with Appellant’s counsel that he possessed the 

information regarding Appellant’s criminal record after running the driver’s 

and Appellant’s information and before ending the interaction based on the 

initial traffic violation. Id. Thus, when again asked why he re-engaged the 

driver, Trooper Bromberg testified that “before I could ask for a consent to 

search, the driver has to feel free to leave.” Id. at 52. Explaining further, 

he stated: “Before the driver was – in order to get consent, I had to turn it 

into a mere encounter.” Id. Trooper Bromberg provided the following 

additional testimony regarding this second round of questioning:

[Appellant’s counsel]: I thought you told His Honor that my –

the individuals were free to leave when you told them you were 

giving them a warning.
J-S12022-15

- 16 -

[Trooper Bromberg]: To end the traffic stop.

[Appellant’s counsel]: To end the traffic stop.

[Trooper Bromberg]: Correct.

[Appellant’s counsel]: But in your mind, they weren’t really free 

to leave because you were going to reengage. Weren’t you?

[Trooper Bromberg]: I made the decision, after I told them 

they were free to go, that I was going to reengage him and ask 

him questions.

[Appellant’s counsel]: And that was pre-meditated for legal 

reasons. Yes?

[Trooper Bromberg]: Yes.

N.T., 6/20/13, at 53. 

Given the facts surrounding the subsequent interaction, we conclude 

that the driver and Appellant were subject to a second seizure. As noted, 

the driver and Appellant were stopped for a lawful detention resulting from 

the motor vehicle code violations. Because the trooper had accomplished 

the purpose of the stop, as indicated by his issuance of a warning and 

stating that the driver and Appellant were free to go, the driver would have 

been within his rights to drive away at that point. Nevertheless, the 

trooper’s subsequent actions were inconsistent with his statement that they 

were free to leave. After walking toward his cruiser, the trooper turned 

around and returned to the driver’s vehicle, approached the driver, and 

began to ask the driver additional questions. Moreover, when the trooper 

re-engaged the driver, the driver was still standing outside of his vehicle. 
J-S12022-15

- 17 -

N.T., 6/20/13, at 73. As this Court has noted, when a person is standing 

outside rather than inside his vehicle, he is less likely to believe that he can 

actually leave the area by entering the car and driving away. 

Commonwealth v. Kemp, 961 A.2d 1247, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citing 

Moyer, 954 A.2d at 659).

Thus, even though the trooper advised the driver and Appellant that 

they were free to leave, the trooper’s actions would suggest to a reasonable 

person that such advice was no longer operative. Freeman, 757 A.2d at 

908. Indeed, the trooper testified that it was his intention to re-engage the 

driver after ending the initial traffic violation stop. As such, we cannot 

conclude that a reasonable person would feel free to leave the scene. As 

noted previously, “when an individual has been subjected to a valid 

detention and the police continue to engage that person in conversation, the 

citizen, having been in official detention, is less likely to understand that he 

has the right to refuse to answer questions or a search.” Moyer, 954 A.2d 

at 665. Thus, we conclude that the driver and Appellant were not involved 

in a mere encounter with the troopers at that point, but instead were 

subjected to a second investigative detention. See Commonwealth v. 

Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 116 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“[W]here the purpose of an 

initial traffic stop has ended and a reasonable person would not have 

believed that he was free to leave, the law characterizes a subsequent round 

of questioning by the police as an investigative detention or arrest.”).
J-S12022-15

- 18 -

Accordingly, for this investigative detention to pass constitutional 

muster, it must be supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. 

Kemp, 961 A.2d at 1254. “Where the investigative detention at issue 

follows a lawful traffic stop, the officer must demonstrate cause for suspicion 

after the end of the initial stop, and independent of any basis on which he 

conducted the prior stop.” Jones, 874 A.2d at 117. 

Here, the trooper identified the fact that the driver was overly 

apologetic, nervous, and talkative as reasons to re-engage the driver. 

In [Commonwealth v.] Sierra[, 723 A.2d 644 (Pa. 

1999)] and DeHart, our Courts pronounced an officer’s 

assessment of nervous demeanor palpably insufficient to 

establish reasonable suspicion of a citizen’s involvement in 

criminal activity, even when viewed in combination with other 

indicia of potential criminal acts. We have found furtive 

movements similarly deficient even when they occur in high 

crime environments in the late hours of the night. Thus, we find 

no basis to conclude that excessive nervousness and furtive 

movements, even considered together, give rise to reasonable 

suspicion of criminal activity. A police officer’s observation of a 

citizen’s nervous demeanor and furtive movements, without 

more, establishes nothing more than a “hunch,” employing 

speculation about the citizen’s motive in the place of fact. Were 

we to validate such a practice, we would open every occupant of 

a motor vehicle in this Commonwealth to law enforcement 

officers’ wholly subjective interpretation of inoffensive conduct, 

and undermine our Supreme Court’s time-honored insistence 

that police officers may stop our citizens only on the basis of 

objective criteria. This we cannot do. This we will not do.

Reppert, 814 A.2d at 1206 (some internal citations omitted).

Thus, we conclude that the driver’s behavior of being overly apologetic 

or nervous is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. Additionally, 

Trooper Bromberg possessed the information regarding Appellant’s criminal 
J-S12022-15

- 19 -

history prior to ending the initial stop based on the traffic violation. 

Accordingly, such information could not serve as the basis of reasonable 

suspicion for the subsequent interaction after the initial stop ended. 

Moreover, as previously noted, Trooper Bromberg testified to having the 

intention of re-engaging the driver after ending the initial traffic violation 

stop with the hopes of turning that interaction into a mere encounter. Thus, 

we cannot conclude that the Trooper had reasonable suspicion to justify the 

second investigative detention. 

Additionally, we find no validity to any argument that the subsequent 

search of the vehicle was voluntary. When a consensual search is preceded 

by an illegal detention, “the government must prove not only the 

voluntariness of the consent under the totality of the circumstances, but ... 

must also establish a break in the causal connection between the illegality 

and the evidence thereby obtained.” Commonwealth v. Sierra, 723 A.2d 

644, 647-648 (Pa. 1999). In determining whether the consent has been 

vitiated by the taint of the preceding illegal detention, the reviewing court 

must consider: “(1) the temporal proximity of the illegal detention [and the 

defendants’ consent]; (2) the presence of intervening factors between the 

two events; and (3) the circumstances surrounding, and the nature of, the 

official misconduct.” Id. at 648 (brackets in original).

Under the facts of the present case, there was insufficient attenuation 

between the consent and the illegal detention to purge the taint of the 
J-S12022-15

- 20 -

Trooper’s unlawful conduct. The driver consented to the search only 

moments after the Trooper re-initiated questioning. Moreover, there were 

no intervening circumstances that would have diminished the coercive 

atmosphere of the illegal detention or otherwise justified the search. Finally, 

as previously noted, at the time the driver offered to allow the search, the 

vehicle was surrounded by two troopers, and Trooper Bromberg had just 

repeated his questioning regarding the driver’s excessive nervous and 

apologetic demeanor. Under such circumstances, the driver’s consent was 

tainted by the officer’s conduct and was therefore ineffective to justify the 

search. Sierra, 723 A.2d at 648. 

Because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to support the 

detention and the driver’s consent was tainted, the officers had no authority 

to search the car. Therefore, they had no justification for ordering Appellant 

out of the vehicle pursuant to the search and subsequently patting him 

down. As a result, the evidence seized during the pat-down search should 

have been suppressed. Thus, we are constrained to conclude that the court 

erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress.5

Judgment of sentence vacated and order denying Appellant’s 

suppression motion reversed. Case remanded for a new trial. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.

____________________________________________

5 Due to our resolution of Appellant’s first issue, we need not address 

Appellant’s remaining claims raised on appeal.
J-S12022-15

- 21 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/27/2015