Court Opinion

ID: 9881110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-29 17:09:48.46594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:03.459972
License: Public Domain

J-S23011-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 FAKIY A. FURLOW                          :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 2508 EDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 18, 2022
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
          Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006981-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                  FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2023

      Fakiya Furlow appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia after Furlow was found guilty of

carrying a firearm without a license and carrying firearms on public streets or

public property in Philadelphia. Furlow claims the trial court erred in denying

his motion to suppress physical evidence because the police officer’s

questioning exceeded the scope of a permissible traffic stop and the officer

lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a protective frisk. We find his claims

without merit and therefore affirm.

      At the hearing on Furlow’s motion to suppress evidence, the

Commonwealth presented the testimony of Officer Christopher Rycek. Officer

Rycek testified that at approximately 7:40 p.m. on September 22, 2020, he

stopped Furlow for driving without headlights at night. See N.T. Suppression
J-S23011-23

Hearing, 6/17/2022, at 10. Rycek stated he had been on the police force for

eight-and-a-half-years, and proceeded to describe that Furlow retrieved his

license and registration from the glove compartment in a manner that in

Officer Rycek’s experience was consistent with someone trying to conceal a

firearm. See id. at 15-16.

      As a result, Officer Rycek asked Furlow if he had ever been arrested or

had weapons in the vehicle, to which Furlow responded he had not. See id.

at 11. However, when Officer Rycek ran a criminal background check, it

revealed Furlow had a prior drug arrest. See id. Officer Rycek returned to the

vehicle and asked why Furlow had lied about his prior arrest, but Furlow did

not respond. See id. at 13. The officer then instructed Furlow that he was

going to frisk him, then opened the door, felt Furlow’s waistband, and

discovered a firearm. See id. at 14.

      Officer Rycek arrested Furlow and charged him with carrying a firearm

without a license and carrying firearms on public streets or public property in

Philadelphia. Furlow filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence which,

after a hearing, the trial court denied. See Order Denying Motion to Suppress,

7/18/2022. Furlow waived his right to a jury trial and the trial court found him

guilty on both counts and sentenced him to one year of probation. See Order

of Sentence Guilty, 7/18/2022.

      Furlow now appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the

evidence of the firearm. Furlow claims Officer Rycek’s questioning exceeded

                                       -2-
J-S23011-23

the scope of a permissible traffic stop and the officer lacked reasonable

suspicion to conduct a protective frisk.

      Our review of challenges to a trial court’s denial of a suppression motion

is “limited to the evidence for the prosecution and whatever evidence for the

defense which is uncontradicted on the record as a whole.” Commonwealth

v. Smith, 836 A.2d 5, 10 (Pa. 2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

The record is limited to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.

See Commonwealth v. Harlan, 208 A.3d 497, 499 (Pa. Super. 2019).

Additionally, the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth as the prevailing party. See Commonwealth v. Jackson,

907 A.2d 540, 542 (Pa. Super. 2006). If the trial court’s factual findings are

supported by the record, its decision may only be reversed if its legal

conclusions are erroneous. See Commonwealth v. Laatsch, 661 A.2d 1365,

1367 (Pa. 1995).

      First, Furlow claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to

suppress because the police exceeded the scope of a permissible traffic stop.

When stopping a motor vehicle for further investigation of an observed Vehicle

Code violation, a police officer has the authority to check “vehicle registration,

proof of financial responsibility, vehicle identification number or engine

number or the driver's license, or secure such other information” reasonably

necessary to enforce the Vehicle Code. Commonwealth v. Clinton, 905 A.2d

1026, 1030 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). Additionally, a police officer

                                      -3-
J-S23011-23

may ask the driver whether there are weapons in the car, or anything else he

should be aware of, as these questions present only a “minute intrusion” and

fall “unquestionably and completely on the side of officer safety.” Id. at 1031.

Moreover, questioning unrelated to traffic stop does not render seizure

unlawful “so long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of

the stop.” Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333 (2009). To justify detaining

an individual for further questioning, the officer must be able “to point to

specific and articulable facts that, taken together with the reasonable

inferences from those facts, reasonably indicate that criminal activity might

have been afoot.” Commonwealth v. Parker, 619 A. 2d 735, 738 (Pa. Super.

1993).

      To support his claim, Furlow relies on Commonwealth v. Lopez, 609

A.2d 177 (Pa. Super. 1992). There, the officer pulled Lopez over for a traffic

violation, asked for his credentials, and returned to his cruiser where he

verified the documents. See id. at 179. When the officer returned to the

vehicle Lopez was renting, without ever returning Lopez’s credentials, the

officer asked Lopez to exit the vehicle and walk with him to the rear of the

vehicle. See id. The officer proceeded to ask questions about the origin and

destination of Lopez’s trip, if he could look in the vehicle, and ultimately ask if

Lopez would consent to a search of the vehicle. See id.

      Lopez consented and the canine search revealed over 70 pounds of

marijuana. See id. This Court found that, once Lopez’s credentials were

                                       -4-
J-S23011-23

checked and the officer no longer had questions related to the initial stop, the

detention ceased to be lawful because there were no reasonable grounds to

suspect an illegal transaction in drugs or other serious crime. See id. at 182.

      However, the facts here present a distinctly different order of events

than those in Lopez. Here, upon initially approaching the vehicle, the officer

asked Furlow for his credentials. See N.T., Suppression Hearing, 6/17/2022 at

11. Officer Rycek testified that, when Furlow was retrieving his credentials

from the glove box, “he was doing such in a slow manner, and it was almost

as if he didn’t want to come out of his seat in the hunched over position. He

also fumbled around with his paperwork while providing it to me.” Id. The

officer described the movements, based on his experience on the police force,

as being consistent with concealing a firearm. See id. at 16. After recognizing

the movements to retrieve the documents, Officer Rycek asked if Furlow had

prior arrests, was on probation or parole, or had any weapons in the vehicle,

to which Furlow responded he had not. See id. at 11. At the suppression

hearing, the officer explained that he normally asks these questions during

traffic stops to gauge the situation for his personal safety:

      When I do traffic stops, I do ask about probation, parole, prior
      arrests, if people have permits to carry, and if there's firearms in
      the car. That's all safety purposes. I'd like to know who I'm dealing
      with during the course of traffic violations.
Id. at 29.
      When Officer Rycek returned to his patrol car to verify Furlow’s driver

credentials, he simultaneously ran a search of Furlow’s criminal history. See

                                      -5-
J-S23011-23

id. at 11. Although Furlow’s driver’s credentials checked out, the criminal

background database revealed that Furlow lied about his arrest history. See

id. at 11, 20. Officer Rycek explained that he returned to Furlow’s vehicle with

no intention of issuing a citation but to further question Furlow about why he

had lied about prior arrest. See id. at 31.

      Based upon this record, we cannot conclude that the suppression court

erred in finding that “there is no evidence in the record that checking Furlow’s

arrest record added time to the stop.” Trial Court Opinion, 10/17/2022, at 3.

While Furlow is correct in pointing out that the criminal record check was not

relevant to the initial reason for the stop, he is incorrect in asserting that

having “only observed a traffic violation, Officer Rycek’s authority was limited

to issuing a citation or warning.” Appellant’s Brief, at 8. Instead, Officer Rycek

noted that Furlow’s behavior during the stop caused him to have concerns that

Furlow was concealing a firearm. These observations were sufficient to justify

at least some minor investigation to determine if Furlow posed a threat to

Officer Rycek’s safety. Given the lack of evidence of how long the criminal

background check took compared to the other document queries, there is no

basis upon which to conclude that Officer Rycek unreasonably extended the

duration of the stop to address his safety concerns. Therefore, we find Furlow’s

first claim does not merit relief.

      Next, as his second issue on appeal, Furlow claims the trial court erred

in denying his motion to suppress because he believes Officer Rycek conducted

                                      -6-
J-S23011-23

a frisk without reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Whether

an officer possessed reasonable suspicion is determined by considering “the

totality of the circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Simmons, 17 A.3d 399,

403 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). “These circumstances are to be

viewed through the eyes of a trained officer.” Commonwealth v. Jackson,

907 A.2d 540, 543 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).

      A police officer may conduct a frisk limited to what is necessary to

discover any weapons if the officer has both reasonable suspicion that criminal

activity may be afoot and reasonable belief that the subject is armed and

presently dangerous. See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 771 A.2d. 1261, 1269

(Pa. 2001). To justify a frisk, the officer must be able to point to “specific and

articulable facts” indicating the subject of the frisk “may be armed and

dangerous.” Commonwealth v. Cooper, 994 A.2d 589, 593 (Pa. Super.

2010).

      Furtive movements witnessed during a lawful traffic stop may provide a

reasonable basis for a protective frisk. See Simmons, 17 A.3d at 404.

However, “[a] police officer's observation of a citizen's nervous demeanor and

furtive movements, without more, establishes nothing more than a ‘hunch[.]’”

Commonwealth v. Reppert, 814 A. 2d 1196, 1206 (Pa Super. 2002). This

Court has recognized that a subject’s display of elusive behavior, such as lying

to an officer, may provide the officer with reasonable suspicion to detain the

                                      -7-
J-S23011-23

subject for further investigation. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 73 A.3d

609, 616 (Pa. Super. 2013).

      Here, when Officer Rycek was asked why he performed the frisk, he

explained, “[i]n this case based off the totality of the circumstances in my

observations of his nervousness, conversation with my partner, the seated

position and his mannerisms, I made the determination that he may have a

firearm and I frisked him for my safety.” N.T., Suppression Hearing, 6/17/2022

at 27. After viewing the bodycam footage of the stop and hearing the officer’s

testimony at the suppression hearing, the trial court found that some of

Furlow’s movements could be interpreted as an attempt to “conceal

something”:

      I find that Mr. Furlow did not take an excessively long time to
      produce his registration. So I find that the speed at which he got
      his registration and produced it was not suspicious. So I find that
      in your favor. But I do find that as he leaned over into the glove
      box, he kept his hand on the steering wheel and that could have
      been interpreted by the police officer, as he testified, as an
      attempt to con[c]eal something. So those are t[w]o mixed
      findings.
Id. at 41.
      In addition to these furtive movements, Furlow’s elusive behavior

witnessed by Officer Rycek raised additional suspicion that criminal behavior

may be afoot. Furlow told the officer that he had not been arrested before but,

when the officer ran a criminal background check, it revealed that Furlow had

a prior drug-related arrest. See id. at 11, 20. Then, Officer Rycek returned to

the vehicle to ask Furlow why he had lied about the prior arrest and asked if

                                     -8-
J-S23011-23

there were any firearms present. See id. at 13. This time, Furlow did not

respond to the officer’s questions: “I observed [Furlow] was hesitant to answer

my questions as well as he had a blank stare on his face which I conveyed to

be he was concerned and/or nervous.” Id. at 15. At this moment, Officer Rycek

proceeded to frisk Furlow, who remained seated in the vehicle, and discovered

the firearm in Furlow’s waistband. See id.

      Based on this record, we cannot conclude that the suppression court

erred in finding that Officer Rycek possessed sufficient reasonable suspicion

to justify the frisk. Furlow’s furtive movements, false statements about his

prior arrests, and failure to respond to questions about the presence of a

firearm collectively present specific and articulable facts that gave the officer

reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was afoot and reason to

believe Furlow may be armed and dangerous. Therefore, we find the trial court

did not err in denying the motion to suppress the physical evidence of the

firearm.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/29/2023

                                      -9-