J-S44042-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

ODELL EPPS, :

:

Appellant : No. 1410 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 1, 2015 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,

Criminal Division, No(s): CP-51-CR-0005747-2014

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JUNE 28, 2016

Odell Epps (“Epps”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed 

following his conviction of possession of a controlled substance (heroin), and 

possession with intent to manufacture or deliver (heroin).1 We affirm. 

In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant factual and 

procedural background, which we adopt for purposes of this appeal. See

Trial Court Opinion, 1/19/16, at 1-4.2

On appeal, Epps raises the following question for our review:

Whether the lower court abused its discretion in denying [Epps’s] 

Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence[] where police made [a] 

warrant[]less entry into [the] dwelling without probable cause 

and exigent circumstances, rendering all evidence observed and 

recovered as a result of the warrantless entry and subsequently 

 

1 See 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16), (30). 

2 With regard to the trial court’s reference to an “unknown substance” found 

in two open bags in an upstairs bedroom, our review of the record discloses 

no determination as to the nature of the substance. See Trial Court 

Opinion, 1/19/16, at 4. 
J-S44042-16

- 2 -

executed tainted search warrant, fruit of the poisonous tree, and 

therefore, inadmissible[] under the Fourth Amendment of the 

United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the 

Pennsylvania State Constitution?

Brief for Appellant at 4. 

Epps contends that Officer Carl Diaz’s (“Officer Diaz”) stated reason for 

entering 3018 N. 8th Street (hereinafter “the premises”), i.e., that someone 

inside was shot and injured, did not give rise to reasonable suspicion, 

probable cause or exigent circumstances. Id. at 18. Epps points out that 

police had received similar anonymous calls on the two preceding days, with 

negative results, and asserts that the anonymous call on the date in 

question “was a mere pretext to justify a warrantless entry and search of the 

[premises].” Id. Epps claims that the initial warrantless search and seizure, 

which served as the basis for the issuance of a search warrant, violated 

Epps’s constitutional rights under the United States Constitution and Article 

1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution. Id. Epps argues that 

all of the evidence recovered during the execution of the search warrant 

constitutes fruit of the poisonous tree and should be declared inadmissible. 

Id. Epps contends that the trial court abused its discretion in determining 

that the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that 

probable cause existed. Id. at 21. Epps asserts that, when Officer Diaz and 

Officer Jason Hernandez (“Officer Hernandez”) entered the premises and 

conducted a search thereof, there was “no fair probability that they would 

encounter a gunshot victim or any other indicia of crime, where [p]olice had 
J-S44042-16

- 3 -

responded to the same report of a possibly dead shooting victim the two 

previous days, with negative results.” Id. at 23. Epps claims that the 

police “were on another wild goose chase[,] and there was no evidence of a 

shooting or other criminal activity observed by the [o]fficers before they 

forced their way inside.” Id. at 23-24. Epps points to Officer Diaz’s 

testimony that he heard a male voice before a visibly nervous Shavonna 

Baker told Officer Diaz that she was alone in the premises, and argues that 

this was “clearly insufficient corroborative evidence to support reasonable 

suspicion, let alone probable cause[] to justify a warrant[]less entry and 

search of the premises.” Id. at 24. Epps contends that police had no 

credible or reliable independent evidence of drug activity to support the 

issuance of a search warrant. Id. at 25-26. Epps asserts that the absence 

of a credible source of information, independent of the illegal search and 

seizure conducted by Officers Diaz and Hernandez, tainted the search 

warrant, rendering all of the evidence recovered during its execution as fruit 

of the poisonous tree. Id. at 26-27. 

The trial court set forth the relevant law, addressed Epps’s issue, and 

concluded that both probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the 

initial search of the premises. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/19/16, at 4-5, 5-7. 

We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, which is supported by 

the record, and affirm on this basis. See id. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 
J-S44042-16

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/28/2016
§§ A30) and Intentional Possession of a Controlled Substance by a Person Not Registered (35 § 

Manufacture/Delivery/Possession with intent to Manufacture or Deliver (PWID) (35 § 780-113 

On February 11, 2015, Defendant was found guilty following a jury trial, of 

Quash was heard and denied. 

denied. On October 2, 2015, the Defendant's Motion to Reconsider the Ruling on the Motion to 

~ 

On September 18, 2014, the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence was heard and 

Possession of a Firearm Prohibited (18 § 6105 §§ Al). 

Motion to Quash was granted in part, with respect to the charges of Conspiracy (18 § 903) and 

Substance by a Person Not Registered (35 § 780-113 §§ A16). On October 2, 2015, Defendant's 

Possession of a Firearm Prohibited (18 § 6105 §§ Al) and Intentional Possession of a Controlled 

_,,~~-""' -- 

intent to Manufacture or Deliver (PWID) (35 § 780-113 §§ A30), Conspiracy (18 § 903), 

On April 2, 2014, the Defendant was charged with Manufacture/Delivery/Possession with 

II I I II lllll I I Ill Ill II IIII 

7395105081 Procedural History 

.................. P"> .. ----, ·- ....... ,.... . - ...... ,._., • 

....,, ,.J • ...,;·~·v"""'""' -.,, .._,., ,.,. ....,..,,..,.,, •· ~t't".;.., ,_.,..t,,. '-• COVINGTON, J. Opinion 

OPINION 

ODELL EPPS 

v. 1410 EDA 2015 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CP-51-CR-0005747-2014 

IN THE COURT~OF COMMON PLEAS _.,,,,!'' .. , 

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF-PENNSYLVANIA 

TRIAL DIVISION - CRIMINAL SECTION 

Circulated 05/25/2016 04:16 PM
2 

Factual History 

Police Officer Carl Diaz testified at a suppression hearing that he and his partner, Officer 

Jason Hernandez, responded to a radio call-on April 2t 2014, around l la.m., in the area of 3018 

North 8th Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. N.T. 9/18/15 at 9-10. The radio call consisted of 

an anonymous tip of a person with a gun and a person shot inside of the home at 3018 North 8th 

Street, further stating there was possibly a male with a self-inflicted gun wound. Id. at 29. The 

officers approached the home and Officer- Diaz knocked on the door but did not receive an 

answer. Id. at 15. After a second knock, Officer Diaz heard a male voice ask who was at the 

door. Id. Officer Diaz announced that it was the police and the male voice asked, "[t]he police?" 

Id. Officer Diaz responded, "[y ]es, the police". Id. A few seconds later before Officer Diaz 

knocked a third time, a young female, Shavonna Baker, opened the front door. Id. Ms. Baker 

appeared to be nervous. Id. Officer Diaz asked if anyone was hurt or shot inside the home. Id. 

Ms. Baker hesitantly replied no. Id. Officer Diaz then asked if anyone else was present in the 

home, and Ms. Baker denied the presence of any other persons in the home. Id. A few seconds 

later, Office Diaz saw a male, Defendant.Davenport, ~alk through the downstairs level of house, 

toward the rear. Id. Officer Diaz immediately summoned Defendant Davenport to the front door 

and asked if anyone was shot in the home and if anyone else was inside of the home. N.T. 

9/18/15 at 18-19. Mr. Davenport and Ms. Baker exchanged glances and Mr. Davenport 

Defendant's Motion to Suppress. 

780-113 §§ A16. On March 1, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to two to four years 

incarceration followed by six years of state probation. 

On May 8, 2015, Defendant filed a timely Notice of Appeal of the Courts granting 
3 

box on top on the dining room table, whichcontained arproximately fifteen ( 15) or more plastic 

cylindrical vials of a green leafy substance. N. T. 9/18/15 at 23. Then the Officers conducted a pat 

rest of the lower level of the home. Id. at 23. In the dining room, Officer Diaz saw a small, open 

paraphernalia on top of a dresser in the back room. Id. at 42-43. Officer Diaz then cleared the 

room he observed a scale on the window J.ill and a bla,~k plastic grocery bag containing plastic 

vials sitting on the floor near the window sill. Id. at 23-24. He further observed heroine 

threats, and injuries. Id. at 22-23. Office Diaz cleared all the rooms upstairs, but in the middle 

Office Diaz proceeded to check the upper level of the home for additional people, safety 

Defendant Davis to exit the room with h,~s hands up. ,,,_.Id. Defendant Davis was subsequently 

frisked for weapons and sent downstairs with the minor child. Id. 

Defendant Davis, in the front bedroom, with a minor child. Id. at 21. Officer Diaz instructed 

him to go downstairs. Id. at 20-21. Officer Diaz then turned around and observed another male, 

drawn his gun and requested that Defendant.Epps exit t~e back room with his hands up. Id. at 20. 

Defendant Epps complied, and the Officers frisked Defendant Epps for weapons then instructed 

where he smelled a pungent odor of marijuana. Id. at 22, 40. Once upstairs, Officer Diaz had 

Officer Diaz informed his partner, Officer Hernandez, of his observation and proceeded upstairs, 

male, Defendant Epps, quickly move from the middle room to the back room of the home. Id. 

Officer Diaz could see the upstairs of thehome from where he was standing and observed a 

: ~--· ·: ... 

to them, but then heard footsteps coming from the upper level of the home. N.T. 9/18/15 at 19. 

The Officers instructed Mr. Davenport and Ms. Baker to sit down on the couch to speak 

the home to confirm that there are no injured persons inside. Id. 

informed Mr. Davenport and Ms. Baker t!ic:!the and his partner, Officer Hernandez would check 

... "• 

responded that no one was hurt and that no one else was inside the home. Id. Officer Diaz 
4 

Commonwealth's witnesses together with the evidence of the defense that, when read in the 

must follow "a clearly defined standard of review and consider only the evidence from the 

those findings. Id. When the defendant appeals from a suppression order, the appellate court 

appellate court is bound by the findings of fact of the suppression court, if the record supports 

are reasonable. Commonwealth v. Smith, 917 A.2d 848, 850 (Pa. Super. 2007). Furthermore, the 

supported by the record and whether the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those facts 

settled. The appellate court must ascertain whether the trial court's factual findings are 

The applicable standard of review in.an appeal from an order of suppression is well 

,.,; .. ·. ..: .... 

Standard of Review 

marijuana and alleged heroin was packed. N.T. 9/18/15 at 53-54. 

recovered unused packaging materials similar to the containers and bags in which the alleged 

... -~. 

five (5) clear baggies knotted at the top containing heroine. N.T. 5/15/2014 at 14-15. NSF also 

two open bags with an unknown substance, later determined to be and a black shopping bag with 

marijuana. Upstairs, in the middle room, NSF recovered the Driver's License of Defendant Epps, 

box on the dining room table containing twenty-four (?4) clear cylinders containers with hydro 

residence at 3018 North 8th Street. Id. at 50-52. From the living room, the task force recovered a 

Strike Force ("NSF") served and executed a signed and approved search warrant for the 

At approximately 6:30pm, on April 2, 2014, Officer Anne Rutherford of the Narcotics 

while they called the Narcotics Strike Forc,~,Ad. at 23. ~, 

Defendant Epps. Id. at 47. The Officers placed the three defendants and Ms. Baker in handcuffs 

substance and nine hundred and forty-eight U.S. Dollars ($948.00) from the hoodie pockets of 

down of the Defendants. Id. Officer Hernandez recovered two cylinders containing a green leafy 
5 

police or other persons inside or outside dwelling. Id. Probable cause exists if, at the moment of 

likelihood that evidence will be destroyed if police take time to obtain warrant, or danger to 

circumstances justified warrantless search are whether there is hot pursuit of fleeing felon, 

time of the entry. Id. Factors that may be considered in determining whether exigent 

that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended, whether the entry was peaceable, and the 

strong reason to believe the suspect is within premises being entered, whether there is likelihood 

armed, whether there is an above and beyond clear showing of probable cause, whether there is 

search exist are: the gravity of the offense, whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be 

1994). Factors to be considered in determining whether exigent circumstances for warrantless 

probable cause or exigent circumstances exist Commonwealth v. Roland, 63 7 A.2d 269 (Pa. 

Entry of a home without a warrant is prohibited under the Fourth Amendment, unless 

I. The Motion To Suppress Was Properly Denied Because There Were Exigent 

Circumstances And Probable Cause To Justify Entry and Search Of The Home. 

Discussion 

warrant is fruit of the poisonous tree. 

cause or exigent circumstances and thus the evidence uncovered under the subsequently issued 

appeal: the Trial Court abused its discretion denying appellant's Motion to Suppress Physical 

Evidence where the was evidence obtain;d by a warrantless entry of a home without probable 

Pursuant to the Defendant's 1925(b) Statement of Errors, the Defendant asserts one error on 

Statement of Errors: 

589 (PA Super 2008). 

context of the entire record, remains uncontradicted." Commonwealth v. Mack, 953 A.2d 587, 
6 

the arrest or search, the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which the 

officer had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent person in 

believing that the person arrested had committed, or was committing an offense, or there was 

contraband, weapons, or other evidence on the premises. Henry v. U.S., 361 U.S. 98 (1959). 

In the instant case, there is sufficient probable cause and exigent circumstances to justify 

the police officers' entry and search of the home. The totality of the circumstances and an 

evaluation of the factors, clearly demonstrate the officers had probable cause to believe that 

people were in danger inside the property. The initial anonymous tip of a person being shot, a 

person possessing a gun, and a possibly self-inflicted gunshot wound establish a gravely 

dangerous scenario. The gravity of a crime involving a shooting is high. Information of a 

possible shooting immediately demands police officers to exercise caution in investigating the 

safety of themselves and others, inside and outside the premises. The anonymous tip was 

reinforced by the circumstances of the officers' attempted investigation of the house. At first, a 

male voice answered through the closed front door, then after another knock, Ms. Baker 

answered the door, appearing nervous and hesitant to answer if anyone was shot inside the 

house. Although Ms. Baker denied any shooting inside the house, she also denied the presence 

of anyone else inside the property. 

The officers then observed a male walk by behind Ms. Baker. As the officers had already 

observed a male walk by, contradicting MsrBaker's statement, and had observed Ms. Baker 

acting nervous, it was reasonable for the officers to believe that Ms. Baker was herself in danger 

of specific harm from the unidentified armed man, and unable to answer truthfully. After the 

officers established the possibility of danger, they proceeded to make a peaceable entry, merely 

instructing Ms. Baker and Defendant Davenport to sit on the couch while they searched for any 
7 

reasons the Court's denial of the motion should be upheld. 

The Trial Court properly denied'"the Motion to Suppress Evidence. For the foregoing 

Conclusion 

probable cause and exigent circumstances to justify the entry and search of the home. 

entrance to the property' and the misrepresentation by one of the occupants are sufficient 

possible danger. Given the extreme nature of the anonymous tip, the suspicious behavior at the