J-S54024-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

SCOTT M. DEBRUYCKER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 205 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 18, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County Criminal Division at 

No(s): 

CP-42-CR-0000101-2017

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 07, 2018

Scott M. Debruycker appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in 

the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County, following his conviction of two 

counts of possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of 

paraphernalia.

1

 After review, we affirm.

On September 1, 2016, Bradford City Police Department Officers, 

including Officer Michael P. Ward, responded to a report of an unresponsive 

male located behind the Dollar General store in the City of Bradford. When 

police arrived, they discovered Debruycker lying unresponsive on a grassy hill 

behind the Dollar General’s dumpster. Debruycker’s face and skin were blue 

and purple in color and he was breathing shallowly. Shortly thereafter, 

____________________________________________

1 Possession of Controlled Substance, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), and 

Possession of Paraphernalia, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32).
J-S54024-18

- 2 -

Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”) arrived to assess Debruycker’s condition. 

EMS suspected that Debruycker was suffering an opioid overdose and began 

preparing a “Narcan” injection, which counteracts opioid overdoses. Prior to 

being administered the Narcan, Debruycker awakened and began flailing his 

arms. Officer Ward observed Debruycker in what he characterized as a

confused and disoriented state; Officer Ward, based on his training, agreed 

with EMS’s assessment that he was suffering from an opioid overdose. Under 

these circumstances, Officer Ward believed that Debruycker was an imminent 

danger and threat to himself.

EMTs placed Debruycker on a stretcher, but he refused all medical 

services. Police then notified Debruycker that his arrest for public 

drunkenness was imminent, after which police commanded him to empty his 

pockets. Debruycker removed a knife, a cigarette wrapper, matches and a 

small lighter from his front pockets. After Debruycker removed the items from 

his pockets, Officer Ward noticed a green plastic straw, the tip of which had 

white residue on it, begin to emerge from his pocket. Officer Ward believed 

the straw was paraphernalia often used to snort/ingest narcotics. Based, in 

part, on that observation, Officer Ward searched Debruycker’s other pockets 

and recovered a folded paper containing a tannish/white powdery substance. 

After police searched Debruycker’s person and informed him he was under 

arrest, he agreed to go to the hospital, but after he arrived, he continued to 

refuse medical treatment.
J-S54024-18

- 3 -

On December 29, 2016, the Commonwealth charged Debruycker with 

one count of possession of a controlled substance (heroin), one count of 

possession of paraphernalia, and public drunkenness. On February 15, 2017, 

the Commonwealth amended its complaint to add a second count of 

possession of a controlled substance (fentanyl). The trial court held all 

charges for trial. On May 17, 2017, Debruycker filed a motion to suppress the 

narcotics and paraphernalia recovered by police. On September 19, 2017, 

following a hearing, the trial court denied Debruycker’s motion. On December 

19, 2017, following a bench trial, the trial court convicted Debruycker of all 

the charges. On January 18, 2018, the trial court sentenced Debruycker to 

an aggregate sentence of 10 days’ to six months’ imprisonment and a 

consecutive term of six months’ probation.

On February 5, 2018, Debruycker filed a timely notice of appeal. Both 

the trial court and Debruycker have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On appeal, 

Debruycker raises one issue for our review: “Whether the trial court erred in 

denying [Debruycker’s] motion for suppression of evidence of controlled 

substances and paraphernalia found on [his] person as a result of a search 

incident to a warrantless arrest for public drunkenness[.]” Brief of Appellant, 

at 4.

Debruycker avers that the trial court erred in denying his motion for 

suppression because he “was not, at the time of his arrest, engaged in 

‘ongoing conduct that imperil[ed] the personal security of any person or 

endangers public or private property.’” Brief of Appellant, at 10. We disagree.
J-S54024-18

- 4 -

Our standard of review from the denial of a suppression motion is well 

settled: 

We are limited to determining whether the factual findings are 

supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn 

from those facts are correct. We may consider the evidence of 

the witnesses offered by the prosecution, as verdict winner, and 

only so much of the defense evidence that remains uncontradicted 

as a whole. We are bound by facts supported by the record and 

may reverse only if the legal conclusions reached by the court 

below were erroneous. 

Commonwealth v. McAliley, 919 A.2d 272, 275-76 (Pa. Super. 2007) 

(internal citations omitted).

Our Supreme Court has held that “a police officer may search the 

arrestee’s person and the area in which the person is detained in order to 

prevent the arrestee from obtaining weapons or destroying evidence, but 

otherwise, absent an exigency, the arrestee’s privacy interests remain intact 

as against a warrantless search.” Commonwealth v. White, 669 A.2d 896, 

902 (Pa. 1995). Our Supreme Court further explained: 

It is not a violation of the constitutional guarantee against 

unreasonable search and seizure for officers, when making a 

lawful arrest with or without a search warrant, to discover and 

seize any evidence, articles or fruits of crime found upon the 

prisoner or upon the premises under his control at the time of his 

lawful arrest, if it is directly connected with the offense charged. 

This constitutes merely an incidental seizure of evidence of crime 

in the execution of a lawful arrest and not a wrongful invasion by 

an unwarranted seizure of property.

Commonwealth v. Stallworth, 781 A.2d 110, 116 (Pa. 2001).

Here, Officer Ward initiated his search of Debruycker’s person after 

arresting him for public drunkenness. A person is guilty of public drunkenness 
J-S54024-18

- 5 -

“if he appears in any public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol or 

a controlled substance... to the degree that he may endanger himself or other 

persons or property.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 (emphasis added). Additionally, 

“a police officer shall, upon view, have the right of arrest without warrant upon 

probable cause when there is ongoing conduct that imperils the personal 

security of any person or endangers public or private property[,]” (e.g., for 

public drunkenness). 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8902(a). Where an officer of the law 

has probable cause to arrest a defendant for public drunkenness, the officer 

may execute a warrantless search of defendant’s person incident to the arrest. 

Commonwealth v. Canning, 587 A.2d 330, 332 (Pa. Super. 1991). A search 

of a defendant suspected of public drunkenness is a valid search incident to 

arrest where police have probable cause, even if the Commonwealth never

charges or convicts the defendant for public drunkenness. Id.

Officer Ward observed Debruycker in an impaired state and believed he

was suffering an opiate overdose. Ward believed that Debruycker’s belligerent 

refusal of medical services, under the circumstances, presented a threat to 

himself. At Debruycker’s suppression motion, Officer Ward testified as 

follows:

OFFICER WARD: I advised him based off his confused state, his –

the fact that he was refusing to go to the hospital, that I felt he 

was a danger to himself at this point and I advised him he was 

going to be placed under arrest and was, in fact, under arrest for 

public intoxication whether it be alcohol and/or a controlled 

substance and I advised him he was going to be coming with me.
J-S54024-18

- 6 -

N.T. Suppression Hearing, 8/22/17, at 8-9. Having assessed that Debruycker, 

who Officer Ward discovered in a public area, was a danger to himself, Officer 

Ward placed him under arrest for public drunkenness. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 

5505; see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8902(a). In light of Debruycker’s arrest for public 

drunkenness, the trial court did not err in finding that Officer Ward’s

warrantless search of his person was lawful. Canning, supra.

Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not err in denying 

Debruycker’s suppression motion, as Officer Ward had probable cause to 

arrest Debruycker for public drunkenness.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/7/2018