J-S53005-14 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

: PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee :

:

 v. :

:

DEVIN NATHANIEL BYES-SANDERS, :

:

 Appellant : No. 1544 WDA 2013 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 29, 2013, 

Court of Common Pleas, Erie County, 

Criminal Division at No. CP-25-CR-00002258-2012 

BEFORE: DONOHUE, OLSON and PLATT*, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED AUGUST 21, 2014 

 Devin Nathaniel Byes-Sanders (“Byes-Sanders”) appeals from the 

August 29, 2013 judgment of sentence entered by the Erie County Court of 

Common Pleas. Specifically, Byes-Sanders challenges the trial court’s denial 

of his motion to suppress. Upon review, we affirm. 

 The trial court summarized the testimony from the suppression 

hearing as follows: 

The Commonwealth presented the testimony of 

Lieutenant Michael Nolan, City of Erie Police. Nolan 

has been with the City of Erie Police for twenty (20)

years and the lieutenant in charge of the Drug and 

Vice Unit for approximately ten (10) years. 

On March 8, 2012, a search warrant for evidence of 

drug dealing was obtained for the residence of 

Ernesto Perez Jefferson and his wife, Jessica Perez, 

at 829 West Tenth Street, Erie, Pennsylvania. 
J-S53005-14 

- 2 - 

The search warrant on the Perez residence was 

executed the same day. Approximately five ounces 

of cocaine and $15,000.00 in cash were recovered 

from Perez’s residence. Ernesto Perez was arrested 

and transported to the police station where he 

agreed to speak with Nolan and Detective Fisher. 

Perez confessed to Nolan the $15,000.00 

represented proceeds from drug sales. He told the 

police the cocaine belonged to him and was for sale. 

Perez agreed to cooperate with the police by 

completing a drug deal that was to occur later that 

day with his supplier. Perez told Nolan his supplier 

was Jarron Jackson. Perez told Nolan a person 

named ‘Dev’ was Jackson’s middleman for the 

delivery of the drugs. Perez told Nolan he never met

Jackson and his only contacts with him were by 

telephone. Perez told Nolan he previously met with 

‘Dev’ in his capacity as the runner for Jackson. 

Perez told Nolan the $15,000.00 seized from his 

residence earlier in the day was to be paid to 

Jackson through ‘Dev’ for a half-kilo of cocaine that 

was due for delivery later that day. Nolan testified 

the $15,000.00 was bundled in thousand dollar 

quantities, folded over and rubber-banded, which 

was typical of drug transactions involving large sums 

of money. 

Perez related the drug deal would include a 

telephone call between Perez and Jackson to 

coordinate payment and delivery of the drugs. Perez 

told Nolan this was typical for drug transactions with 

Jackson. 

Perez described for Nolan other typical features of 

drug transactions involving Jackson and ‘Dev’. The 

majority of the drug transactions occurred at Perez's 

residence on 10th Street. ‘Dev’ typically arrived in a

black Expedition SUV with a loud, thumping stereo. 

‘Dev’ typically came to the back door of Perez’s 

residence. Perez normally paid ‘Dev’ in cash. 
J-S53005-14 

- 3 - 

Perez described ‘Dev’ as a tall, thin, black male in his 

twenties with dreadlocks. 

Perez advised that ‘Dev’ and Jackson changed their 

phone numbers every couple of weeks. Perez gave 

Nolan the most recent telephone number he had for 

‘Dev’. 

Nolan testified Jackson was a well-known dealer of 

cocaine and crack cocaine. 

Nolan researched Jackson’s associates on the Erie 

Police Department records management system. In 

doing so, he came across [Byes-Sanders’] name as a 

known associate of Jackson. 

At the police station and in Nolan’s presence, Perez 

received a phone call from Jackson. Perez and 

Jackson discussed an imminent drug deal. Nolan 

assembled a team and returned to Perez's residence 

at approximately 5:30 p.m. 

While Perez remained behind at the police station, 

Perez had multiple phone conversations with Jackson 

and ‘Dev’ concerning the drug transaction that was 

to occur. Detective Fisher relayed information about 

the calls to Nolan via two-way radio. 

At 7:10 p.m., while Nolan was waiting at Perez’s 

residence with the team of officers, a black 

Expedition SUV pulled up and parked outside Perez’s 

residence. Within a few seconds, Nolan received 

contact from Detective Fisher that Perez had just 

received either a phone call or text message from 

‘Dev’ saying, ‘I'm here.’ From inside Perez’s 

residence, Nolan observed [Byes-Sanders] exit the 

black Expedition and walk toward the residence. 

Nolan determined that [Byes-Sanders] matched the 

Perez’s [sic] description of ‘Dev’. Nolan determined 

[Byes-Sanders’] vehicle matched Perez’s description 

of ‘Dev’s’ vehicle. [Byes-Sanders] was alone. [ByesSanders] walked to the back door of Perez’s 
J-S53005-14 

- 4 - 

residence. [Byes-Sanders] knocked or rang the door 

bell [sic]. 

Nolan waited approximately 20 seconds and opened 

the door. Nolan and the two officers inside Perez’s 

residence had their weapons drawn. [Byes-Sanders] 

was ordered to show his hands and get down. From 

the officer’s perspective, [Byes-Sanders] was under 

arrest at this time. [Byes-Sanders] did not comply, 

but took steps backwards. Nolan reached out and 

restrained [Byes-Sanders] by the arm. 

While restraining [Byes-Sanders], Nolan felt a very 

hard bulge in the left sleeve of [Byes-Sanders’] coat. 

Nolan placed [Byes-Sanders] on the ground and 

retrieved from [Byes-Sanders’] left sleeve multiple 

bags of compressed cocaine. Recovered from [ByesSanders’] pocket was a large quantity of eight balls 

of crack cocaine, bagged individually and contained 

within a larger bag. 

Perez identified [Byes-Sanders] as ‘Dev’ at the Erie 

Police station after [Byes-Sanders’] arrest. 

Trial Court Opinion, 10/24/13, at 2-5 (record citations and footnote 

omitted). 

 Byes-Sanders filed a motion to suppress asserting, inter alia, that the 

police obtained the evidence by virtue of an arrest made without probable 

cause. The trial court held a hearing on January 7, 2013, and denied the 

motion on February 28, 2013. 

 The case proceeded to a bench trial on June 25, 2013, and the trial 

court convicted him of possession of a controlled substance, possession of a 

controlled substance with intent to deliver, and possession of drug 
J-S53005-14 

- 5 - 

paraphernalia.1

 On August 29, 2013, the trial court sentenced Byes-Sanders 

to an aggregate term of 48 to 96 months of incarceration followed by six 

months of probation. 

 Byes-Sanders filed a timely notice of appeal. He raises one issue for 

our review: 

Whether or not the lower court erred in holding that

the City of Erie vice unit had probable cause to arrest 

[Byes-Sanders] on March 8, 2012 when [ByesSanders] approached the residence at 829 West 10th

Street, Erie, Pennsylvania at approximately 7:10 

p.m. in a black Expedition, and after knocking at the

door was greeted with three guns in his face by Erie 

City Police Officers and was forcibly pulled into the 

residence by Lieutenant Nolan, at which time 

Lieutenant Nolan felt a hard object in [ByesSanders’] coat sleeve, and removed the object 

pursuant to a search of [Byes-Sanders] incident to 

his arrest? 

Byes-Sanders’ Brief at 3. 

 “Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to the denial of a 

suppression motion is limited to determining whether the suppression court’s 

factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal 

conclusions drawn from those facts are correct.” Commonwealth v. 

Thompson, 93 A.3d 478, 484 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). We are 

not bound by the trial court’s legal conclusions, but must apply the law to 

the supported facts found by the trial court. Id. The trial court’s 

conclusions of law are subject to our plenary review. Id.

 

1

 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), (30), (32).
J-S53005-14 

- 6 - 

 The trial court found that the police had probable cause to arrest ByesSanders for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, a 

felony, when he arrived at Perez Jefferson’s house. Trial Court Opinion, 

10/24/13, at 6. It reached this conclusion based upon the following 

testimony provided by Lieutenant Nolan: 

• Perez Jefferson was a known drug dealer; 

• police recovered five ounces of cocaine and $15,000 from Perez 

Jefferson, which money he stated was to be used in a cocaine 

purchase later that day with an intermediary known as “Dev”; 

• the money was bundled in a way that Lieutenant Nolan knew to be 

consistent with drug transactions; $15,000 was the appropriate cost 

for the amount of drugs Perez Jefferson was to purchase; 

• Perez Jefferson received a call from Jackson while at the police station 

that the drug deal was “imminent”; 

• Byes-Sanders arrived at Perez Jefferson’s house in the vehicle Perez 

Jefferson described as belonging to “Dev”; 

• within seconds of Byes-Sanders arriving at the house, “Dev” 

communicated with Perez Jefferson saying “I’m here”; 

• Byes-Sanders fit the description of “Dev” provided by Perez Jefferson; 

and 

• Byes-Sanders came to the back door of the house to effectuate the 

drug transaction, as Perez Jefferson said he would. 

Id. at 6-7. Pursuant to its conclusion that the search was incident to ByesSanders’ proper arrest, the trial court found that suppression was not 

warranted. 
J-S53005-14 

- 7 - 

 Byes-Sanders asserts that this was insufficient to give rise to a finding 

of probable cause to arrest him because (1) Lieutenant Nolan testified that 

he was not certain that it was “Dev” at the door; (2) Perez Jefferson said 

“Dev” would arrive with the stereo “thumping,” and Lieutenant did not know 

if that was the case when Byes-Sanders arrived; and (3) Byes-Sanders did 

not have anything to carry the 1⁄2 kilo of cocaine, all of which distinguish this 

case from Commonwealth v. Guzman, 612 A.2d 524 (Pa. Super. 1992), 

abrogated on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Bell, 645 A.2d 211 (Pa. 

1994). Byes-Sanders’ Brief at 13-14. 

 Police are empowered to arrest a suspect without a warrant, inter alia, 

if the officer has probable cause that the suspect has committed a felony. 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 502(2)(b). 

Probable cause is made out when the facts and 

circumstances which are within the knowledge of the 

officer at the time of the arrest, and of which he has

reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to 

warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief 

that the suspect has committed or is committing a 

crime. The question we ask is not whether the 

officer's belief was correct or more likely true than 

false. Rather, we require only a probability, and not 

a prima facie showing, of criminal activity. In 

determining whether probable cause exists, we apply 

a totality of the circumstances test. 

Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928, 931 (Pa. 2009) (internal 

citations, quotations, and emphasis omitted). 

[A] warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest is 

reasonable, and no justification other than that 
J-S53005-14 

- 8 - 

required for the arrest itself is necessary to conduct 

such a search. Stated another way, in all cases of 

lawful arrests, police may fully search the person 

incident to the arrest. Consequently, any evidence 

seized as a result of a search incident to a lawful 

arrest is admissible in later proceedings. 

Commonwealth v. Ingram, 814 A.2d 264, 272 (Pa. Super. 2002) (internal 

citations and emphasis omitted). 

 In Guzman, the police discovered cocaine while executing a search 

warrant at an apartment. Upon his arrest, the apartment’s resident 

arranged for the delivery of two kilos of cocaine to his apartment, and 

described the person who would be coming to the apartment and the vehicle 

in which he would arrive. Guzman, 612 A.2d at 525. 

The defendant came to the apartment in the described vehicle and he 

physically matched the description provided. He was also carrying a satchel 

large enough to carry two kilos of cocaine. When the defendant knocked on 

the apartment door, police arrested him immediately, searched the satchel 

and unwrapped the packages contained therein, revealing over two kilos of 

cocaine. Id.

 Based upon the totality of the circumstances, including that the 

defendant arrived in the vehicle described, matched the description 

provided, and was carrying a bag large enough to carry the amount of 

cocaine expected, this Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the 
J-S53005-14 

- 9 - 

defendant’s motion to suppress, as there was probable cause to support his 

warrantless arrest. Id. at 526. 

 Turning to the case at bar, we are unmoved by the points made by 

Byes-Sanders in an attempt to distinguish this case from Guzman. First, we 

note that Byes-Sanders’ claim that Lieutenant Nolan was not certain that the 

person at the door was “Dev” is inaccurate. Rather, the record reflects that 

Lieutenant Nolan testified that when Byes-Sanders came to the door he was 

unsure that it was in fact Byes-Sanders. N.T., 1/7/13, at 32. Lieutenant 

Nolan never expressed any doubt that the person knocking on the door was 

“Dev,” whom he knew would be bringing 1⁄2 kilo of cocaine. It is irrelevant 

for probable cause purposes whether the police knew the specific identity of 

the individual who brought the cocaine prior to effectuating the arrest – 

probable cause to arrest is based upon knowledge that the person at the 

door, regardless of his name, is committing a crime. Thompson, 985 A.2d 

at 931. 

Furthermore, Lieutenant Nolan’s inability to recall whether the stereo 

was “thumping” when Byes-Sanders arrived as Perez Jefferson said was the 

case with “Dev” in the past and the absence of a satchel or bag to carry the 

cocaine does not negate a finding of probable cause. The record reflects 

that police recovered $15,000 during the search of the home of Perez 

Jefferson, a known drug dealer, which was bundled in a manner consistent 

with drug purchases. N.T., 1/7/13, at 6, 12-13. Perez Jefferson stated that 
J-S53005-14 

- 10 - 

the money was going to be used to purchase 1⁄2 kilo of cocaine, which would 

be brought to his house later that day by an intermediary known as “Dev.” 

Id. at 9, 11, 12. The street value of 1⁄2 kilo of cocaine is approximately 

$15,000. Id. at 15. He received a call while at the police station, indicating 

that the drug transaction was “imminent.” Id. at 19, 20, 23. Byes-Sanders 

arrived at the house in the vehicle described, matched the description 

provided, and went to the back door of the house, as Perez Jefferson said he 

would. Id. at 13-14, 15, 28, 29. At the same time Byes-Sanders arrived at 

the house, Perez Jefferson received a communication from “Dev” which said, 

“I’m here.” Id. at 29. 

Applying the totality of the circumstances test, we agree with the trial 

court that the evidence presented supported Lieutenant Nolan’s belief that 

Byes-Sanders was committing a felony, to wit, possession of a controlled 

substance with intent to deliver. See Thompson, 985 A.2d at 931. Thus, 

the cocaine discovered on Byes-Sanders’ person, recovered during the 

search incident to his arrest, was properly admitted. See Ingram, 814 A.2d 

at 272. 

The record supports the trial court’s findings of fact and the legal 

conclusions drawn therefrom are correct. See Thompson, 93 A.3d at 484. 

We therefore affirm the judgment of sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 
J-S53005-14 

- 11 - 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/21/2014