J-S74018-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

TYRIEK OATES 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2447 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 16, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0012603-2013

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and RANSOM, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 20, 2017

Tyriek Oates appeals nunc pro tunc from his judgment of sentence, 

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following his 

conviction for possession with intent to deliver narcotics1 and possession of a 

controlled substance of a person not registered.2 After careful review, we 

affirm.

The trial court aptly summarized the relevant facts of the case, from the 

suppression hearing, as follows:

The Commonwealth presented the testimony of Police Officer 

David Ewing and [Police Officer] Daniel Villafane. In summary[,] 

Police Officer Ewing testified that on July 27, 2013, at 

approximately 8:20 to 8:30 p.m., he was on duty as [a] 

Philadelphia police officer and was in the area of 1119 

Moyamensing Avenue. Police Officer Ewing was in an unmarked 

vehicle in plain clothes with a fellow officer at the time. He stated 

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(3).

2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).
J-S74018-17

- 2 -

he observed a white male, identified as Mr. Rossi, standing in the 

area of the 1200 [b]lock of Moyamensing Avenue with money in 

his left hand and then speaking on his cell phone, which he held 

in his right hand.

He stated that upon seeing this, his partner drove the unmarked 

vehicle around the block and parked on Moyamensing Avenue, up 

the street from where they made this initial observation. He 

exited the vehicle and walked in the direction of where he was 

able to observe Mr. Rossi’s actions.

Police Officer Ewing stated that he then observed a black Chrysler 

300 pull up to 1119 Moyamensin Avenue and saw the defendant 

exit this vehicle and approach Mr. Rossi, who was now standing in 

the doorway of that address. He testified that he observed Mr. 

Rossi hand the defendant an unknown amount of money and then 

observed the defendant hand Mr. Rossi small objects into his 

open[] palm.

At that point Officer Ewing testified that he radioed to his backup 

team to follow the black Chrysler. Police Officer Ewing then 

walked across the street after the Chrysler left and Mr. Rossi had 

gone inside of 1119 Moyamensing Avenue. Through partially 

opened vertical blinds, he was able to observe Mr. Rossi with a 

small plastic bag of white powdery substance3that he suspected 

to be crack cocaine. At that point he testified that he radioed the 

backup team to stop the black Chrysler that the defendant was in.

On cross-examination, Police Officer Ewing reiterated that he 

observed clearly what he had previously testified to, including 

being able to see into the home through [the] window after what 

he suspected was a narcotics transaction, because of the open 

position that the vertical blinds were in when he made this 

observation. Photographs admitted into evidence supported his 

testimony that the blinds were partially opened.

At the time of this incident, Police Officer Ewing had been a police 

officer for nine years and testified that he had conducted over 100 

narcotics surveillances prior to this surveillance and made what 

____________________________________________

3 Officer Ewing actually testified that he saw “two clear bags with an off-white 

chunky substance which [he] believed to be crack cocaine” in Rossi’s hand 

through the vertical blinds, immediately following the observed exchange with 

Oates. N.T. Suppression Motion, 1/7/14, at 7-8. However, a search incident 

to Oates’s arrest did uncover one small bag containing an off-white chunky 

substance in Oates’s underwear. Id. at 46.
J-S74018-17

- 3 -

he estimated to be 500 narcotics arrests for crack cocaine in his 

career up to that point. He testified that he believed he had 

observed a hand-to-hand narcotics transaction take place 

between Mr. Rossi and [Oates].

The Commonwealth then called Police Officer Villafane, who 

testified in summary that he was acting as a backup to Police 

Officer Ewing and his partner on the evening of July 27, 2013. 

This [o]fficer stopped the black Chrysler 300 that the defendant 

was a passenger in after being directed to do so by Police Officer 

Ewing over police radio. He stated that the defendant was in the 

passenger’s seat and initially provided a driver’s license with false 

information when he was asked for his identification. [Oates] was 

then placed under arrest and a search incident to that arrest 

revealed [Oates] had small plastic bags, as well as a larger 

sandwich type bag on his person, both of which contained a white 

powdery substance of suspected crack cocaine, as well as a plastic 

bag containing alleged heroin and $635.00.

The confiscated narcotics tested positive for cocaine base and 

heroin. The narcotics, the currency, and the cell phone [were] 

recovered from [Oates] and were all placed on property receipts.4

Trial Court Opinion, 1//19/17, at 5-7 (footnotes omitted). 

On November 12, 2013, Oates filed a motion to suppress arguing that 

his arrest was illegal because the police did not have probable cause to believe 

that he was involved in criminal activity and, therefore, all the physical 

evidence recovered from the arrest should be suppressed. On January 7, 

2014, the court held a suppression hearing; at the conclusion of the hearing, 

____________________________________________

4 Although on cross-examination Officer Villafane testified that the vehicle 

Oates was in was stopped at 15th and Shunk Streets in the City of 

Philadelphia, all the police paperwork indicated that Oates was stopped in the 

1200 block of Moyamensing Avenue. N.T. Suppression Hearing 1/7/14, at 45. 

The trial court, however, determined that this fact was not of any significance 

to the overall facts of this case for purposes of suppression where the location 

of the vehicle stop was irrelevant to the issue of probable cause.
J-S74018-17

- 4 -

the court denied the motion and proceeded to a non-jury trial. See N.T. 

Suppression Hearing, 1/7/2017, 67. Oates was found guilty of the abovementioned offenses and was sentenced to 21-42 months’ incarceration, 

followed by three years of probation.5 

On appeal, Oates raises the following issues for our consideration:

(1) Did the suppression court err by finding probable cause 

existed to arrest [Oates] based on the police [officer]’s 

observation of a single hand[-]to[-]hand transaction 

coupled with the supposed plain sight of drugs that were not 

associated with [Oates]?

(2) Did the lower court err by finding that the police conducted 

a lawful frisk of [Oates] where they did not articulate that 

the items seized from him were immediately identifiable as 

contraband?

Probable cause to arrest and search exists where the facts and 

circumstances within the knowledge of an officer are based upon reasonably 

trustworthy information and are sufficient to warrant a man or woman of 

reasonable caution in the belief that a suspect has committed or is committing 

a crime. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009). In

determining whether probable cause exists, an appellate court applies a 

totality of the circumstances test. “A police officer’s experience may fairly be 

regarded as a relevant factor in determining probable cause.” Id. at 936. 

However, there must be a nexus between the officer’s experience and the 

search, arrest, or seizure of evidence. Id.

____________________________________________

5 The section 780-113(a)(16) offense merged, for sentencing purposes, with 

the possession with intent to deliver charge.
J-S74018-17

- 5 -

In Thompson, a police officer with nine years of experience was 

patrolling the streets in a high crime area. The officer observed the defendant 

hand money to another individual in exchange for a small object. Id. at 930. 

Relying upon his experience, the officer believed that a drug transaction had 

just transpired. The officer stopped the defendant and recovered heroin from 

the appellant's pocket. Id. The Supreme Court held that “a police officer's 

experience may fairly be regarded as a relevant factor in determining probable 

cause.” Id. at 935. However, the Thompson Court cautioned courts that 

they “cannot simply conclude that probable cause existed based upon nothing 

more than the number of years an officer has spent on the force. Rather, the 

officer must demonstrate a nexus between his experience and the search, 

arrest, or seizure of evidence.” Id. (quoting Dunlap, 941 A.2d at 676). 

“Indeed, a factor becomes relevant only because it has some connection to 

the issue at hand.” Id.

Here, like in Thompson, Officer Ewing observed a single hand-to-hand 

transaction of currency exchanged for a small, unidentified object. Under 

these limited circumstances, the value of the police officer’s experience 

became critical to the probable cause determination. Because Officer Ewing’s 

observation of the lone transaction, by itself, did not create probable cause, 

his experience was necessary to determine whether probable cause existed. 

As stated in Thompson, that experience has value only if the officer can 

demonstrate a nexus between the experience and the observed behavior. 
J-S74018-17

- 6 -

Viewing the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that probable 

cause existed to arrest Oates. Here, Officer Ewing observed Oates approach 

Rossi and given him currency in exchange for small objects. Officer Ewing 

testified that through partially opened vertical blinds6 he clearly saw “two clear 

bags with an off-white chunky substance which [he] believed to be crack 

cocaine” in Rossi’s hand immediately following the observed exchange with 

Oates. N.T. Suppression Hearing, 1/7/14, at 7-8. Officer Ewing was a nineyear veteran of the Philadelphia Police Force at the time of the arrest, had 

conducted over 100 narcotic surveillances, and estimated that he had made 

500 arrests for crack cocaine in his career. Id. at 10-11. Moreover, Officer 

Ewing testified that he and his partner were in the process of following another 

suspect, who had just been observed the night before at the exact location of 

12th and Moyamensing Avenue dealing narcotics, when they saw the instant 

transaction between Oates and Rossi. Id. at 12.7

Accordingly, we conclude that probable cause to arrest and search Oates 

existed where the facts and circumstances within Officer Ewing’s knowledge 

were based upon reasonably trustworthy information and were sufficient to 

____________________________________________

6 The Commonwealth introduced a photograph showing that the window blinds 

were open; Officer Ewing testified that the photograph accurately depicted the 

scene as he had viewed it at the time immediately after the exchange between 

Rossi and Oates. N.T. Suppression Hearing, 1/7/14, at 31-32; 42.

7 Because we have determined that Office Ewing lawfully arrested Oates, there 

is no need to consider whether the evidence could have been lawfully seized 

as a frisk incident to an investigatory stop.
J-S74018-17

- 7 -

warrant an individual, of reasonable caution, to believe that Oates had 

committed or was committing a crime. Thompson, supra.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/20/2017