### J. A15010/16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: E.V. : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: E.V. : No. 1261 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Dispositional Order, April 7, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No. CP

- 51

- JV

- 0000135

- 2015

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., DUBOW AND JENKINS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 16, 2016 E.V. appeals from the juvenile dispositional order entered in the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on April 7, 2015, adjudicating him as a delinquent after the trial court found him guilty of possession of firearm by minor and furnishing false identification to law enforcement authorities. 1


### We affirm.
The trial court set forth the following factual history:

On February 6, 2015, Philadelphia Police Officer Matthew Blaszczyk Badge #6382, assigned to the 25 th 

### Police District, was on vehicular patrol near the 100 block of W. Gurney Street in Philadelphia County. Officer Blaszczyk had been an officer in said area for nine years. Officer Blaszczyk described the area as a high

- crime area and the busiest area in the city, as far as narcotics and violent crimes. Officer Blaszczyk had recovered at least one hundred firearms, during the co urse of his career.

1 

### 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6110.1 and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4914, respectively.

### J. A15010/16

- 2

- At approximately 12:30 [p.m.], Officer Blaszczyk was partnered in a vehicle with Officer Gorman, Badge # 4909. Officer Blaszczyk observed a motor vehicle abruptly pull over without signaling, which constituted a motor vehicle violati on. The vehicle then parked in front of a hydrant and the two officers initiated a vehicle investigation at said location. E.V. was seated in the passenger seat of said vehicle. Immediately after the vehicle pulled over, both the operator and the passe nger, E.V., exited the vehicle and attempted to walk away. Both E.V. and the driver, Luis Angala, began to walk south on Hope Street. Officer Gorman, who was closer to the driver, said “Hey. What are you guys doing? Stop. Come back.” The driver turne d around and started arguing with Officer Gorman saying “What? What do you want?” Officer Gorman replied “sit back down in the car. You are not free to leave.” Officer Blaszczyk exited the vehicle. Officer Blaszczyk walked behind E.V. and said “Hey. Where are you going?” Despite two or three requests, E.V. refused to stop. As he pursued E.V., Officer Blaszczyk initially observed the protrusion, which was being caused by a heavy object. Eventually, Officer Blaszczyk was able to grab E.V. and immedi ately felt the bulge in his right cargo pants pocket. E.V.’s pants were tight, which had made the bulge more visible. The bulge had been weighing down his pants pocket. Upon patting E.V. down, he immediately identified the shape of a firearm. His imme diate recognition of the firearm was based on his vast experience recovering firearms. Officer Gorman assisted Officer Blaszczyk in handcuffing E.V. E.V. identified himself as “Josh Ramos” several times to Officer Blaszczyk. E.V. first identified himsel f as “Josh Ramos” while sitting in the back of the police vehicle. Officer Blaszczyk tried to do a criminal background check for “Josh Ramos” and could not find any information. Officer Blaszczyk placed the

### J. A15010/16

- 3

- recovered firearm, a black Ruger, [.]380 calibe r, LCP model, bearing serial number 37630766, on Property Receipt 3185925. E.V. denied having a license to carry a firearm. Officer Blaszczyk believed that E.V. appeared older than his stated age of seventeen. Upon being arrested, Officer Blaszczyk tra nsported E.V. to East Detectives for processing. Officer Blaszczyk asked E.V. to sign a medical checklist. Officer Blaszczyk observed E.V. sign the checklist as “E****.” Then, E.V. crossed it out and said that he made a mistake. Officer Blaszczyk asked E.V. what was his name. E.V. responded “Josh Ramos”[.] Officer Blaszczyk asked E.V. why he signed “E .” Officer Gorman asked “what is your real name?” E.V. responded “I’m not giving you my real name.” After several minutes, E.V. provided his real name of E** ** V*****. When Officer Blaszczyk first began pursuing E.V., he wanted to know E.V.’s identity, due to the pending motor vehicle investigation. Officer Blaszczyk wanted to check if E.V. had any pending warrants. Officer Blaszczyk was concern ed for his safety due to the nature of the area. Ultimately, Officer Blaszczyk asked E.V. his name on several occasions, and had tried to figure out if his name was Joshua versus Josh. E.V. had stated that his name was “just Josh.” After crossing out “E  ”, E.V. could not even write “Josh.” The Commonwealth presented a Certificate on non - licensure, demonstrating that E.V. did not possess a license to carry a firearm. The Commonwealth also presented a ballistics report, showing that the recovered fire arm was operable. Trial court opinion, 7/15/15 at unnumbered pages 2

- 4 (citations to notes of testimony omitted). The trial court set forth the following procedural history:

### J. A15010/16

- 4

- On January 17, 2015, Philadelphia police arrested [appellant], E.V., and charge d him with [possession of firearm by minor and furnishing false identification to law enforcement authorities]. On February 6, 2015, E.V. litigated a motion to suppress before the Honorable Lori A. Dumas. After the denial of the suppression motion, E.V. went to trial and was found guilty of [both charges]. On said date, E.V. was adjudged delinquent and placed on probation, while the probation officer continued to plan for placement. On April 7, 2015, E.V. was committed to a Residential Treatment Facilit y at Pennsylvania State Department of Public Welfare for Appropriate Placement with a specific referral to YDC Cresson. On April 21, 2015, E.V., through his attorney, the Defender Association of Philadelphia filed this appeal. . . .
Id. at unnumbered p age 1 (citations to notes of testimony and footnote omitted). Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did not the lower court err by denying the juvenile’s motion to suppress evidence where the juvenile was first stopped and detained in t he absence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and then subjected to a frisk?
2. Was not the evidence insufficient to prove the juvenile guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of false identification to law enforcement officer where the evid ence failed to show that the juvenile was informed that he was the subject of an official investigation of a violation of law before the juvenile was asserted to have given a false name? Appellant’s brief at 4.

### J. A15010/16

- 5

-

Having determined, after careful review, th at the learned Judge Dumas, in her June 15, 2015 Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, ably and comprehensively disposes of appellant’s issues on appeal, with appropriate reference to the record and without legal error, we affirm on the basis of that opinion.
Juveni le dispositional order affirmed.

Jenkins, J. joins this Memorandum. Dubow, J. files a Concurring and Dissenting Statement. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 12/16/20161 A c opy of th e F ebruary 6, 2 015 Notes of Te s timony are hereto atta c hed and in c orpo r ated as E xh ibit A.

identification to law enforcement officer. evidence and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict on the crime of false filed this appeal. The appellant claims that the court erred by-denying the motion to suppress On April 21, 2015, E.V., through his attorney, the Defender Association of Philadelphia , of Public Welfare for Appropriate Placement with a spec i fic referral to YDC C r esson. 2015, E.V. was committed to aResidential Treatment Facility at Pennsylvania Stat e D e partment placed on probation, while the probation officer continued to plan for placement. 1 On April 7, Identification to Law Enforcement Officer-Ml. On said date, E.V. was adjudged delinquent and motion, E. V. went to trial and was found guilty of VUF A-possession by minor-M 1 and False motion to suppress before the Honorable Lori A. Dumas. After the denial of the s uppressi o n to Law Enforcement Officer (18 Pa.C.S. §4914§§A-M3). On February 6 , 2015 , E.V. litigated a §6108-Ml), VUFA-possession by minor (18 Pa.C.S. §6110.l§§A-Ml) , and False Identificati o n with VUFA-without license (18 Pa.C.S. §6106§§Al-F3) , VUFA-pub l ic streets (18 Pa.C.S. On January 17, 2015, Philadelphia police arrested the defendant, E.V., and charged him v ?
+ · -< '" ·. J .r : _ ., . . ~ '-,, - · '

.. · ··~ '.;. (
. ; 

## . Superior Court# 1261 EDA 2015 v :: o 0 v ::: c 0 OPINION Type of Order:Op

i nion E.V. Petition# CP-51-JV-0000135-2015 APPEAL OF: SID# 403-94-17-6 IN THE INTEREST OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY E.V. JUVENILE DMSION Circulated 09/14/2016 10:03 AMOn February 6, 2015, Philadelphia Police Officer Matth e w Blaszczyk Badg e # 6382,

assign e d to the 25th Police District, was on vehicular patrol near the 100 block of W. Gurney Street in Philadelphia County. (Notes of Testimony, February 6, 2015, pp. 4~5) Officer Blaszczyk had been an officer in said area for nine years. (N.O.T., p. 9) Officer Blaszczyk described the area as a high-crime area and the busiest area in the city, as far as narcotics and violent crimes. (N.O.T., p. 9) Offic e r Blaszczyk had recovered at least one hundred firearms, during the course of his career. (N .O.T., p. 9) At approximately 12:30PM, Officer Blaszczyk was partnered in a vehicle with Officer Gorman, Badge # 4909. Officer Blaszczyk observed a motor vehicle abruptly pull over without signaling , which constituted a motor vehicle violation. (N.O.T., p. 7) The vehicle then parked in
front of a hydrant and the two officers in i tiated a vehicle investigation at said location. (N.O.T., p. 12) E.V. was seated in the passenger seat of said vehicle. (N.O.T., pp. 6 & 12) Immediately after the vehicle pulled over, both the operator and the passenger, E.V ., exited the vehicle and attempted to walk away. (N.O.T., pp. 6 & 8) Both E.V. and the driver, Luis Angala, began to walk south on Hope Street. (N.O.T., pp. 6 & 9) Officer Gorman, who was closer to the driver, said "Hey. What are you guys doing? Stop. Come back." The driver turned around and started arguing with Officer Gorman, saying "What? What do y ou want? " (N.O.T. , p. 8) Officer Gorman replied "sit back down in the car. You are not free to leave." (N.0.T., p. 8 ) Officer Blaszczyk exited the vehicle. (N.O

. T., p. 8) Office r Blaszczyk walked behind E.V. and said "Hey. Where are you going?" (N.O.T., p. 6) Despite two or th r ee r equests, E.V. refused to stop. (N.O.T., pp. 6 & 8) As he pursued E.V., Officer Blaszczyk initiall y observed the protrusion, which was being caused b y a heavy object. (N.O.T. , pp. 10 & 13) E v entuall y , Office r Blaszczyk was able to grab E.V. and immediatel y felt the bulge in his right cargo pant s pocket. FACTS(N.O.T., p. 6) E.V.'s pants were tight, which had made the bulge more visible. (N.O.T., p. 9)

The bulge had been weighing down his pants pocket. (N.O.T., p. 9) Upon patting E.V. do'\VII, he immediately identified the shape of a firearm. (N.O.T., p. 6) His immediate recognition of the firearm was based on his vast experience recovering firearms. (N.0.T., p. 10) Officer Gorman assisted Officer Blaszczyk in handcuffing E.V. (N.O.T., p. 6) E.V. identified himself as "Josh Ramos" several times to Officer Blaszczyk. (N.O.T., p. 7) E.V. first identified himself as "Josh Ramos" while sitting in the back of the police vehicle. (N .O.T., p. 14) Officer Blaszczyk tried to do a criminal background check for "Josh Ramos" and could not find any information. (N.O.T., p. 11) Officer Blaszczyk placed the recovered firearm, a black Ruger, 3 80 caliber, LCP model, bearing serial number 37630766, on Property Receipt 3185925. (N.O.T ., p. 6) E.V. denied having a license to carry a firearm. (N.O.T., p. 10) Officer Blaszczyk
believed that E.V. appeared older than his stated age of seventeen. (N.0.T., p. 10) Upon being arrested, Officer Blaszczyk transported E.V. to East Detectives for processing. (N.O.T., p. 6) Officer Blaszczyk asked E.V. to sign a medical checklist. (N.0.T., p. 7) Officer Blaszczyk observed E.V

. sign the checklist as "E** **." (N.O.T., p. 7) Then, E.V.
crossed it out and said that he made a mistake. (N.O.T., p. 7) Officer Blaszczyk asked E.V. what was his name. (N.O.T., p. 7) E.V. responded "Josh Ramos" (N.O.T., p. 7) Officer Blaszczyk asked E.V. why he signed "E ." (N.O.T., p. 7) Officer Gorman asked "what is your real name?" (N.O.T., p. 7) E.V. responded "I'm not giving you my real name." (N.O.T., p. 7) After several minutes, E.V. provided his real name ofE** ** V*****. (N.O.T., p. 7) When Officer Blaszczyk first began pursuing E.V., he wanted to know E.V.'s identity,
due to the pending motor vehicle investigation. (N.0.T., p. 13) Officer Blaszczyk wanted to
check if E.V. had any pending warrants. (N.O.T., p. 13) Officer Blaszczyk was concerned for his safety due to the nature of the area. (N.O.T., p. 13) Ultimately, Officer Blaszczyk asked E.V. his name on several occasions, and had tried to figure out if his name was Joshua versus Josh. (N.O.T ., p. 13) E.V. had stated that his name was "just Josh." (N.O.T., p. 13) After crossing out - - - _- . : -.:: _- ~ ~ - : ':' Y

- · ·~ · : , · . . - ·Court joined numerous other state and federal courts in this ruling. Pratt states:

a lawfully stopped vehicle to remain inside or get back into the vehicle. In doing s o, the Superior on the reasoning of Maryland v. Wilson, to find that an officer may similarly order a passenger of In Commonwealth v. Pratt, 930 A.2d 561 (Pa.Super. 2007) , our Superior Court expanded In summary, danger to an officer from a traffic stop is likely to be greater when there are passengers in addition to the dri v er in the stopped car. While there is not the same basis for ordering the passengers out of the car as there-is for ordering the driver out, the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal. We therefore hold that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997) established: perform the traffic stop in a safe, efficient manner. Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U. S. 408, 117 S.Ct. Once the officers had probable cause toward the driver, the police had the right to driver of the motor vehicle. vehicle. E.V. does not seem to be contesting the probable cause that existed with regard to the violation, which then created probable cause for the police to lawfully detain the driver of the force on the part of the police. The vehicle's movement itself constituted a motor vehicle abruptly on its own , without any compulsion. The evidence did not demonstrate any show of constitutes a seizure of the driver and its occupants. However, the vehicle in this case pulled over This court recognizes that the forcible stop of a motor vehicle by a police officer

The Motion to Suppress was properly denied.

LEGAL DISCUSSION firearm was operable. (N.O.T., p. 20) (N.O.T., p. 20) The Commonwealth also presented a ballistics report, showing that the recovered Certificate on non-licensure, demonstrating that E.V. did not possess a license to carry a firearm. "E ", E.V. could not even write "Josh." (N.O.T., p. 15) The Commonwealth presented aexperience in recovering over one hundred firearms in said neighborhood immediately helped

immediately detected the firearm during the brief and targeted pat-down. Officer Blaszczyk's do'\VII was brief, minimal, and directly-targeted toward the suspicious bulge. Officer Blaszczyk necessitated a greater show of authority, a full investigative detention, and a pat down. The patE.V.' s pants pocket that appeared to be created by a heavy object. This observation now Blaszczyk had no choice but to stay close to E.V. and in doing so, he clearly observed a bulge in Meanwhile, the driver continued to argue with his partner. With tensions rising, Officer E.V. Officer Blaszczyk requested two or three times for E.V. to stop. E.V. refused to stop. Still, Officer Blaszczyk's actions were measured. He first issued verbal commands to Gorman only further enhanced the urgency to control the actions ofE.V. same time. The fact that the driver, Luis Angala, began to engage in an argument with Officer potential for danger and chaos is greater when police have two people disobeying orders at the the front passenger and the driver simultaneously exited the vehicle abruptly. Clearly, the exited the vehicle abruptly and there were two police officers in the patrol car. In this case, both experience. In this case, the officer had 9 years of experience. In Pratt, only the front passenger in an area known for high-crime and violence. In Pratt, the police officer had 7 ~ years of exited the vehicle and began to walk away. In both Pratt and this case, the interaction took place E.V ., in order to ensure their safety. In both Pratt and in this case, the front passenger abruptly Pratt makes clear that the officers in this case had a right to control the movements of We further recognize, as did the court in Williams, that traffic stops today present the same, if not greater, safety concerns for police officers than they did when Wilson was decided, and that the public interest in promoting the safety of police officers outweighs the marginal intrusion on personal liberty. We believe that allowing police officers to control all movement in a traffic encounter, and, in particular, eliminate the possibility of a passenger, who has an obvious connection to the vehicle's driver, from distracting or otherwise interfering with an officer engaged in a traffic stop, whether by exiting the car and remaining at the scene, or attempting to leave the scene for unknown reasons, is a reasonable and justifiable step towards protecting their safety.found him gui l ty.

truth. E.V. chose to provide the false name fo r a period o f time sufficient for this court to ha v e not a momentary lapse b y E.V., as law enforcement gave him plenty of chance s to tell them the various phases of the official investigation and post-arrest, this claim must clearl y fail. This was fictitious name. Because E.V. continued to provide the name of "Josh Ramos" throughout he was the subject of an official investigation of a v io l ation of the law, prior to providing the Instead, E.V. hereby claims that he was ne v er notified b y a la w enforcement officer that fictitious name and that the first element of this charge is clearl y met. also stated "I'm not giving you my real name." Therefore, it is. clear that "Josh Ramos" was a after Officer Gorman requested that E.V. tell him his "real name". Prior to said admission , E.V. he provided the name of "Josh Ramos" and that he later provided the name of "E** ** V*****, E.V. does not deny that he provided false information. The evidence clearl y shows that PA 650, 39 A.3d 968 (2012). defendant was the subject of an official investigation of a violation of the law-. In Re D

. S., 614 Second, the defendant must do so after being informed by a law enforce m ent officer that the defendant must furnish law enforcement authorities with false information about his identity. In order to satisfy the elements of this crime , there are two requirements. First, the § 4914. False identification to law enforcement authorities. (a) Offense defined.v-A person commits an offense ifhe furnishes law enforcement authorities with false information about his identity after being informed by a law enforcement officer who is in uniform or who has identified himself as a law enforcement officer that the person is the subject of an official investigation of a violation of law. as: The relevant statute is set forth below under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4914§§A in the Crime s Code

The evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict on the charge of False Identification to Law Enforcement Officer. was entitled to retrieve the firearm and subsequently arrest E.V. form the basis to identify the presence of the firearm. Once the officer identified the firearm , heexit th e veh i c l e and w al k away whil e di s r egar d ing o rd e r s, an d r ecove r e d a gun from the

th e m s el ves w itn esse d th e m oto r ve h i cl e v i o lation , watc h e d th e two vehicle occup ants abru p tly Thi s c ase in vo l ves uni fo rm e d p o li ce office r s tr a v e llin g i n a p o li ce v ehi c l e. The po li ce office r s app roach ed juv en i les w i th th e i r gu n s drawn at so m e p o in t aft e r the c rime ha d been commi tte d. di ffe r ent, in th at it i nvo l ve d p l ai nc l othes office r s w h o we r e tr a ve l ing i n an u nmarke d car who n o tification w as, in fa c t , deli ve r e d b y Offi c e r Bl as zc zy k. T he facts i n I n R e D.S. are q ui t e the s urr o u n din g ci rcum s t an c e s
. " In R e D.S

. , 61 4 P A at 660. Th i s court believes that sufficient id en tity an d purp ose i n in v es ti g ating a vi o lati on of th e la w mu st co m e fr o m the office r, not from o ffe n se of pro v iding fal se id e ntification t o law e n fo rc e m e nt , in fo rm atio n r eg ardi ng
. an office r' s Thi s co urt re c ogn i zes that th e h o ldi n g i n I n R e D.S. s p ec i fica ll y stat es "fo r p urposes of have consti tu t e d s i gns of an o ffi c ia l i nv e s ti gati on
. of the p o lice car and the offi cer wa s fillin g o ut fo rm s and typin g int o hi s co mp u t er, th ese mu st handcu ffs on E.V

. s i gn i fie d an offi cia l in vestigati o n. C e rt ai n l y , w h en E.V. was s i ttin g in the b a c k O ffic er Bl as zc zyk's di scov e ry of the gu n on hi s p e r son an d Offi ce r B laszczyk's p la cem e nt of law." 

### If the call s to "s t o p " did n o t con s titut e su ffi ci e nt notificatio n , E. V. mus t h a v e kn o wn that to hav e uttered th e word s ' 'y ou ar e now th e subject of an offi cial i n v esti gation o f a vi o lati on of the officia l inve s tigatio n w a s unde rw a y
. Thi s co urt d oes n o t be li e ve that th e Offi ce r Bla sz c zyk ha d This c o urt belie ves that O ffi cer Bla s zczyk 's call s to stop were s u fficient i n d i cato rs th at an history

. " (N.O

. T. , p. 21) enfor ce m e nt arr est pr oce dure , a s hi s c o un se l n o t e d after th e tri al that E.V

. h ad a "lengthy investigation see m s disi n g e nuou s. It sh o uld al s o b e noted that E.V

. w as no s tran g e r to la w handcuffed E

. V. For E.V

. to c l aim that h e was n o t aware that he wa s the sub j e ct o f an official recov ere d the gun from hi s pant s pocke ts. Thi s wa s after Offic e r Bl asz c zy k an d h i s p artne r h a d Offic e r Bla s zc zyk h ad to ld E

. V

. numerou s time s t o "st op ." Th is w as after Offic er B lasz c zy k h ad identifi e d hims e l f as "J o sh Ram os " whil e s itting in the back of th e p o lice ve hi cl e. Th i s w as after E.V

. id e ntified himself a s " Jo s h Ramo s" se v e ral tim es t o Offi c er Bla szczyk. E

. V

. fir s t I 

## i 

# I

I I" 

## I •• _! ,;- " " '. · ••BY THE C OUR T: A c c o rding l y , this c o urt' s Ord er s h oul d be affirmed

. · CONCLUSION s u bject o f an offi c i al i nv e s tigati o n of a vi o latio n of the law " appear t o h av e ne ve r be e n utter e d

. checkli s t. Still , E.V

. see k s t o take h arbo r in the fact th at the magic wo rd s "y o u ar e now the id entific ati o n s , even whi l e in p o lice cust o d y at the d ete cti v e ' s d iv i s i on, w h il e fi lli ng o u t a medi ca l a s o ppo s ed to ins ide o f a p ark. Mor e import antl y, E.V. pr ov ided n u mero u s othe r fa l se i " 1 · 

### I I t· : 

### i ! 

## I I - I 

# I
! individual ' s per so n. The initial false identi fi cation was pr ov ided i n th e b ack of a p ol i ce ve hi cl e ,