J-S33022- 14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant

v. DAVID LEWIS, Appellee No. 2172 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Order of June 27 , 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR -0014125-2012

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OLSON AND STABILE, JJ

. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JULY 30, 2014 Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeal s from an order granting a motion to suppress physical evidence entered on June 27, 2013.
We reverse. We summarize the facts and procedural history of this c ase as follows. On April 16, 2013, Appellee, David Lewis, was charge d with possession of a firearm, 1 possession of a firearm with an altered manufacturer nu mber, 2 carrying a firearm without a license, 3 and carrying firearms in public in

____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105.

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6110.2.

3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106.J-S33022- 14

- 2 -

Philadelphia. 4 These charges arose from an incident that occurred on November 9, 2012. On that day, Officer Walter Bart le (“Officer Bartle”) was on surveillance in the 1900 block of Seltzer Street. As Officer Bartle was returning to his squad car, he saw Appellee exit his ve hicle, remove a handgun from his waistband and place it in the trunk of his vehicle. Appellee than returned to his car and began to drive away. Officer Bartle and his partner Officer Bannon began to follow Appell ee. Officer Bartle informed other police officers in the su rrounding area of the situation. Subsequently, Officer Bartle and the o ther officers stopped Appellee’s vehicle and approached him. During the st op, Officer Bartle asked Appellee to step out of the vehicle and then a sked if he had a permit for his handgun. Appellee replied that he was “going t o do seven years for this [].” Police then placed Appellee in custody. While Appellee was in custody, Officer Bartle, withou t a warrant, opened the trunk of Appellee’s vehicle and remove d the handgun. After Officer Bartle removed the gun, police handcuffed Appe llee. Before the trial court, Appellee moved to suppress the evidence found in the trunk because police had not obtained a warrant to search his vehicle

. On June 13, 2013, the trial court issued an opinion setting forth its determination that Appellee’s motion to suppress should be granted because

____________________________________________
4 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108.J-S33022- 14

- 3 -

no exigent circumstances supported a warrantless vehicle sear ch. A corresponding order followed on June 27, 2013. On Ju ly 13, 2013, the Commonwealth moved for reconsideration of the suppressio n order. On July 25, 2013, while the motion for reconsideration was pen ding, the Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal and a concise sta tement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) . Thereafter, the trial court issued a more comprehensive explanation of its ruli ng on October 2, 2013. The Commonwealth raises the following issue on appeal:

[Did the trial] court err[] in suppressing a loaded semiautomatic weapon which an officer saw [Appellee] remove from his waistband and place in the trunk of hi s car[?] Commonwealth’s Brief at 10 (capitalization removed). The Commonwealth contends that the trial court erred i n suppressing a firearm recovered from the trunk of Appellee’s v ehicle following a warrantless search. Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to an order granting a motion to suppress is

limited to determining whether the suppression court’s factual findings are supported by the record and wheth er the legal c onclusions drawn from those facts are correct.... Where the suppression court’s factual findings are supported by the record, we are bound by these finding s and may reverse only if the court’s legal conclusions are erroneous. [...T]he suppression court’s legal conclusions are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the lawJ-S33022- 14

- 4 - to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject to our plenary review.

Commonwealth v. Jones , 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010) (citations and quotations omitted). Furthermore, it is a well-established principle of law in this Commonwealth that “a party whose case is pending on dir ect appeal is entitled to the benefit of changes in law which occur be fore the judgment becomes final.” Commonwealth v. Brown , 431 A.2d 905, 906-907 (Pa. 1981). With these standards in mind, we turn to the Commonwealth’s contention that the trial court erred in light of re cent changes in the law. On April 29, 2014, our Supreme Court held that “with regard to the warrantless search of a motor vehicle that is supported by probable cause, Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution a ffords no greater protection than the Fourth Amendment to t he United States Constitution.” Commonwealth v. Gary , 91 A.3d 102, 124 (Pa. 2014). Thus, our Supreme Court “[a]ccordingly adopted the federal autom obile exception to the warrant requirement, which allows police officers t o search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so and does no t require any exigency beyond the inherent mobility of a motor veh icle.” Id . at 104. Applying this new principle of search and seizure law to the facts of the case at bar, we must reverse the trial court’s ruling an d deny Appellee’s motion to suppress physical evidence. Officer Bartle ha d the necessary probable cause to search Appellee’s vehicle. Officer Bar tle watched AppelleeJ-S33022- 14

- 5 -

remove a handgun from his waistband and place it in the trunk of his vehicle. This observation was sufficient to establish p robable cause. This Court has held that “observation [of an individual in visible possession of a firearm] was a sufficient basis for [a] trained police o fficer to reasonably infer that [the individual] was acting in violation o f the statutory prohibition against carrying a firearm on public streets or on publ ic property in Philadelphia [].” Commonwealth v. Romero , 673 A.2d 374, 377 (Pa. Super. 1996). Under the new standard set forth by our Supreme Cour t in Gary , probable cause alone is sufficient to establish grounds f or warrantless search of a vehicle. Here, the police possessed the requisite probable cause for a warrantless search of Appellee’s vehicle; hence, we must r everse the trial court’s order suppressing physical evidence in this case. Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceeding s. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/30/2014