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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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 25th 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 course 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 

violation. 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 passenger, 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 turned 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 immediately 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 immediate 

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 himself 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 caliber, 

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 

transported 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 concerned 

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 firearm 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 charged 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 Facility 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 page 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 

the 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 evidence 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, that 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.

Juvenile dispositional order affirmed.

Jenkins, J. joins this Memorandum.

Dubow, J. files a Concurring and Dissenting Statement.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/16/2016
1 A copy of the February 6, 2015 Notes of Testimony are hereto attached and incorporated as Exhibit 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 specific referral to YDC Cresson. 

2015, E.V. was committed to aResidential Treatment Facility at Pennsylvania State Department 

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 suppression 

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 Identification 

with VUFA-without license (18 Pa.C.S. §6106§§Al-F3), VUFA-public 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: Opinion 

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 AM
On February 6, 2015, Philadelphia Police Officer Matthew Blaszczyk Badge# 6382, 

assigned 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) Officer 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 initiated 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 you 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) Officer Blaszczyk walked behind 

E.V. and said "Hey. Where are you going?" (N.O.T., p. 6) Despite two or three requests, E.V. 

refused to stop. (N.O.T., pp. 6 & 8) As he pursued E.V., Officer Blaszczyk initially observed the 

protrusion, which was being caused by a heavy object. (N.O.T., pp. 10 & 13) Eventually, Officer 

Blaszczyk was able to grab E.V. and immediately felt the bulge in his right cargo pants 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 so, 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 driver 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 a 
experience 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 guilty. 

truth. E.V. chose to provide the false name for a period of time sufficient for this court to have 

not a momentary lapse by E.V., as law enforcement gave him plenty of chances to tell them the 

various phases of the official investigation and post-arrest, this claim must clearly 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 violation of the law, prior to providing the 

Instead, E.V. hereby claims that he was never notified by a law enforcement officer that 

fictitious name and that the first element of this charge is clearly 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 clearly 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 enforcement 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 Crimes 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, he 
exit the vehicle and walk away while disregarding orders, and recovered a gun from the 

themselves witnessed the motor vehicle violation, watched the two vehicle occupants abruptly 

This case involves uniformed police officers travelling in a police vehicle. The police officers 

approached juveniles with their guns drawn at some point after the crime had been committed. 

different, in that it involved plainclothes officers who were traveling in an unmarked car who 

notification was, in fact, delivered by Officer Blaszczyk. The facts in In Re D.S. are quite 

the surrounding circumstances." In Re D.S., 614 PA at 660. This court believes that sufficient 

identity and purpose in investigating a violation of the law must come from the officer, not from 

offense of providing false identification to law enforcement, information regarding .an officer's 

This court recognizes that the holding in In Re D.S. specifically states "for purposes of 

have constituted signs of an official investigation. 

of the police car and the officer was filling out forms and typing into his computer, these must 

handcuffs on E.V. signified an official investigation. Certainly, when E.V. was sitting in the back 

Officer Blaszczyk's discovery of the gun on his person and Officer Blaszczyk's placement of 

law." If the calls to "stop" did not constitute sufficient notification, E.V. must have known that 

to have uttered the words ''you are now the subject of an official investigation of a violation of the 

official investigation was underway. This court does not believe that the Officer Blaszczyk had 

This court believes that Officer Blaszczyk's calls to stop were sufficient indicators that an 

history." (N.O.T., p. 21) 

enforcement arrest procedure, as his counsel noted after the trial that E.V. had a "lengthy 

investigation seems disingenuous. It should also be noted that E.V. was no stranger to law 

handcuffed E.V. For E.V. to claim that he was not aware that he was the subject of an official 

recovered the gun from his pants pockets. This was after Officer Blaszczyk and his partner had 

Officer Blaszczyk had told E.V. numerous times to "stop." This was after Officer Blaszczyk had 

identified himself as "Josh Ramos" while sitting in the back of the police vehicle. This was after 

E.V. identified himself as "Josh Ramos" several times to Officer Blaszczyk. E.V. first 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I" 

I 

•• _! ,;-""'.· •• 
BY THE COURT: 

Accordingly, this court's Order should be affirmed. 

·CONCLUSION 

subject of an official investigation of a violation of the law" appear to have never been uttered. 

checklist. Still, E.V. seeks to take harbor in the fact that the magic words "you are now the 

identifications, even while in police custody at the detective's division, while filling out a medical 

as opposed to inside of a park. More importantly, E.V. provided numerous other false 

i" 1· 

I 

I 

t· 

: 

i 

! 

I 

I 

I 

I 

! 

individual's person. The initial false identification was provided in the back of a police vehicle,