Court Opinion

ID: 9939790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-12 19:09:12.652461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:55.818834
License: Public Domain

J-A01006-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN THE INTEREST OF: K.H.-C., A               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  MINOR                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: K.H.-C., A MINOR                  :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 3169 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered November 15, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                     No(s): CP-51-JV-0001242-2022

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.:                         FILED FEBRUARY 12, 2024

       K.H.-C. appeals from the trial court’s dispositional order following his

adjudication of delinquency for one count each of firearms not to be carried

without a license1 and possession of a firearm by a minor.2 K.H.-C. contends

that the police unlawfully seized and searched him without reasonable

suspicion, probable cause, or any exigency and, thus, any evidence uncovered

from the search should have been suppressed. After careful review, we affirm.

       Officer Mark Anthony of the Philadelphia Narcotics Strike Force testified

that on October 6, 2022, he was on duty as a backup police officer to two

plain clothes narcotics officers who were surveilling the 900 block of North

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1).

2 Id. at § 6110(a).
J-A01006-24

Carlisle Street in Philadelphia. See N.T. Suppression Hearing, 10/28/22, at

9.   The officers were surveilling that block “due to multiple complaints of

narcotics activity in the area, as well as increased violence in the area.” Id.

at 17; see also PARS3 Report, 10/7/22, at 2 (surveillance officers set up

“narcotics surveillance in the area of 900 N[.] Carlisle St. due to multiple

complaints of narcotic activity and increased violence in the area”). That day,

at approximately 3:20 P.M. and 3:45 P.M., the surveillance officers observed

two black males conducting what they believed to be hand-to-hand

transactions to several buyers.          See PARS Report, 10/7/22, at 2.     The

surveillance officers’ PARS report stated that the suspected sellers were

wearing “black face mask[s], black hoodie[s] with a white North Face logo[,]

and black track pants.”         PARS Report (Exhibit C-1), 10/7/22, at 2.     At

approximately 3:50 P.M., the surveillance officers observed two other

unknown individuals approach the two sellers on Carlisle Street. Id.

       At 3:57 P.M., the surveillance officers sent a flash report that “gave the

description of both [suspects] and their exact location to the backup officers,

[which included Officer Anthony,] in the area.” Id. Officer Anthony testified

that the flash report described the suspects as “a black male . . . [t]hree

____________________________________________

3 Philadelphia’s Preliminary Arraignment Reporting System (PARS) is a records

database that serves as the police arrest reporting function for the District
Attorney’s            Charging             Unit.                        See
https://www.phillypolice.com/assets/directives/D5.14-
InvestigationAndChargingProcedure.pdf (last visited 1/17/24).

                                           -2-
J-A01006-24

males, all fitting the same description[,] black jacket and black pants. All on

the 900 block of North Carlisle Street.” N.T Suppression Hearing, 10/28/22,

at 9.    See PARS Report, 10/7/22, at 2 (“At approximately 3:57 P[.]M[.,

Officer] Holden gave the description of both [suspects] and their exact location

to the back[]up officers in the area.          They were standing in a group with

several males.”).

        Less than one minute after receiving the report, Officer Anthony saw

three black males, all fitting the flash description,4 huddled together on the

900 block of North Carlisle Street. See N.T. Suppression Hearing, 10/28/22,

at 10; id. at 15 (Officer Anthony testifying flash radio communications from

fellow officers are “constant [in that the relaying officers are] seeing it [as

they] are relaying it to you[.]”). Officer Anthony stopped the three males,

one of whom was K.H.-C., and told them that they were not free to leave until

they were identified. Id. at 10, 15, 17. See id. at 18, 20 (stipulating K.H.-

C. “in immediate vicinity standing . . . together in group [with two alleged

drug dealers], huddled, speaking with each other”).

        When Officer Anthony stopped K.H.-C., he “grabbed him around his

arms[,] went up against the car with him[, a]nd heard a metal sound hit

against the car.” Id. at 10. After hearing the sound, Officer Anthony asked

K.H.-C., “Oh. What’s that?” Id. K.H.-C. replied that he had a Glock 9 mm

40 caliber gun with an extended clip in his waistband, but that it was “turned
____________________________________________

4 There was also a fourth black male stopped who was wearing a yellow jacket.

Id. at 10.

                                           -3-
J-A01006-24

upside down.”    Id.    Officer Anthony seized the gun from “inside the little

bottom of [K.H.-C.’s] pants[;]” the gun, which had an extended clip on it, was

loaded with 23 rounds in the magazine and one round in the chamber. Id. at

10-12. When the surveillance officers arrived on the scene to identify the

suspected drug dealers, they noted that K.H.-C. was not one of the males they

had observed conducting the earlier hand-to-hand transactions. Id. at 10.

      Prior to trial, K.H.-C. filed a motion to suppress the gun uncovered

during the stop, alleging that the officers lacked either reasonable suspicion

or probable cause to stop him. Specifically, defense counsel argued that the

surveillance officer’s flash report did not consist of any specific, individualized

information and the officers did not observe K.H.-C., himself, participate in

any illicit activity before he was seized and searched. On October 28, 2022,

the court held a suppression hearing at which the Commonwealth presented

Officer Anthony as a witness; the parties also stipulated to and entered, as an

exhibit, the Philadelphia Police Department Arrest Record[, page 2 of the PARS

report,] to represent “what the eyes [i.e., the surveillance officers] in this case

would have said if they testified.” Id. at 16. Following the hearing, the court

denied the motion.

      The evidence from the suppression hearing was incorporated into the

record and, on November 14, 2022, following an adjudicatory hearing, K.H.-

C. was adjudicated delinquent by the Honorable Jonathan Q. Irvine of the

above-cited offenses.    The following day, the court entered a dispositional

                                       -4-
J-A01006-24

order committing K.H.-C. to a state-run residential facility.5 K.H.-C. filed a

timely notice of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal. On appeal, K.H.-C. raises the

following issues for our review:

       (1)    Did the police unlawfully seize [K.H.-C.] at the time he was
              physically restrained by conducting a custodial arrest
              without probable cause, or an investigative detention
              without reasonable suspicion, where the officer acted in
              reliance   on     an    overly-broad[,]     non-individualized
              description of possible suspect, and [,] therefore[,] the
              physical evidence recovered from [K.H.-C.] was [the] fruit
              of an unlawful seizure in violation of [K.H.-C.’s] rights under
              the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
              Constitution, and under the broader protections of Article I,
              Section 8[,] of the Pennsylvania Constitution?

       (2)    Because police did not frisk [K.H.-C.], but instead performed
              a full, personal search without probable cause to arrest, or
              any other exigency, was the firearm recovered from [K.H.-
              C. the] fruit of an unlawful warrantless search in violation of
              [K.H.-C.’s] rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
              Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and under the

____________________________________________

5  Following the adjudication of delinquency on November 14, 2022, Judge
Irvine relinquished jurisdiction to consolidate the case with two other open
matters and the Honorable Joseph Fernandes entered a dispositional order the
following day, on November 15, 2022. Although counsel filed the notice of
appeal from the order adjudicating K.H.-C. delinquent, the appeal properly
lies from the dispositional order. See In re N.W., 6 A.3d 1020, 1021 n.1 (Pa.
Super. 2010) (“In juvenile proceedings, a final order from which a direct
appeal may be taken is the order of disposition, entered after the juvenile is
adjudicated delinquent. [However, o]ur rules provide that if [an] appeal is
prematurely filed from an interlocutory order, the appeal is perfected when a
final, appealable order is subsequently entered.”); see also Pa.R.A.P.
905(a)(5) (notice of appeal filed after announcement of determination but
before entry of appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and
on day thereof). We have amended the caption to reflect that the appeal is
taken from the dispositional order.

                                           -5-
J-A01006-24

              broader protections of Article I, Section 8[,] of the
              Pennsylvania Constitution?

Appellant’s Brief, at 4.

       K.H.-C. asserts that there was “no justification [for Officer Anthony to]

search or seiz[e him where t]he circumstances police relied on to justify their

seizure of K.H.-C. were far from specific or individualized [and where] none of

the criminal activity observed by the surveillance officers involved K.H.-C.”

Id. at 14.

       Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court’s
       denial of a suppression motion is whether the factual findings are
       supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn
       from those facts are correct. When reviewing rulings of a
       suppression court, we must consider only the evidence of the
       prosecution and so much of the evidence for the defense as
       remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as
       a whole.      Where the record supports the findings of the
       suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse
       only if the legal conclusions draw therefrom are in error.

In the Interest of D.M., 727 A.3d 556, 557 (Pa. 1999) (citations omitted).

       “In determining whether reasonable suspicion exists for an investigative

detention, or as it is also known in the common legal vernacular, a ‘Terry[6]

stop,’ the inquiry is the same under both the Fourth Amendment of the United

States Constitution and the Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.”

Commonwealth v. Morrison, 166 A.3d 357, 364 (Pa. Super. 2017). “The

fundamental inquiry is an objective one, namely, whether the facts available

____________________________________________

6 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

                                           -6-
J-A01006-24

to the officer at the moment of the intrusion warrant a man of reasonable

caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.” Id.

      In order to determine whether the police had a reasonable suspicion to

subject an individual to an investigative detention, “the totality of the factual

circumstances which existed at the time of the investigative detention must

be considered.” Id. See Commonwealth v. Houck, 102 A.3d 443, 456 (Pa.

Super. 2014) (internal citations omitted) (In order “[t]o establish grounds for

‘reasonable suspicion’ . . . the officer must articulate specific observations

which, in conjunction with reasonable inferences derived from these

observations, led him to reasonably conclude, in light of his experience, that

criminal activity was afoot and the person he stopped was involved in that

activity.”).

      Among the factors to be considered in establishing a basis for
      reasonable suspicion are tips, the reliability of the informants,
      time, location, and suspicious activity, including flight. Even
      where the circumstances surrounding an individual’s conduct
      suggest ongoing illegality, the individual may not be detained
      unless his or her personal conduct substantiates involvement in
      that activity. This standard requires a particularized and objective
      basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal
      activity.

Morrison, supra at 365.

      In Commonwealth v. Foglia, 979 A.2d 357 (Pa. Super. 2009) (en

banc), a police officer received an anonymous tip that a man, dressed in black,

possessed a weapon at a given location. The officer observed two men, one

of whom was wearing black and who began to engage in evasive behavior and

touch his waist area. Knowing that guns are often concealed in waistbands,

                                      -7-
J-A01006-24

the officer conducted a pat-down search of the defendant, during which he

felt the handle of a gun in his waistband. The officer retrieved the weapon

and, ultimately, the defendant admitted that he did not have a permit to carry

the firearm. In affirming the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s suppression

motion, our Court concluded that the officer

      was properly discharging his duties when he was investigating the
      veracity of an anonymous tip[,] was patrolling the area known for
      drugs and guns[, and,] upon viewing the police officer, [the
      defendant] engaged in evasive behavior [and] displayed hand
      movements consistent with custody of a weapon in his waistband,
      where such items are commonly hidden.

Id. at 361-62.

      Instantly, the reliability of the information in the report relied upon by

Officer Anthony was high, as it came from a narcotics surveillance police

officer,   as   opposed   to   an   anonymous    tip.    Cf.   Foglia,   supra;

Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 692 A.2d 1068 (Pa. 1997) (where police

officer, acting on anonymous information in radio broadcast that “man of

particular description is carrying a gun,” stopped and frisked man fitting

physical description (black male wearing blue cap, black jeans and brownish

coat), tip did not form independent basis for legal stop). Moreover, the fact

that the surveillance officer relayed the information less than one minute

before Officer Anthony stopped K.H.-C., further supports the veracity of the

tip regarding time and location. Moreover, K.H.-C. was wearing clothing fitting

the description of the suspects. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 236 A.3d

                                      -8-
J-A01006-24

1078 (Pa. Super. 2020).7 See also Commonwealth v. Thomas, 179 A.3d

77 (Pa. Super. 2018) (reasonable suspicion existed for frisk, even where

defendant did not meet exact description of suspect provided in radio call

(black male with gun in high crime/violence area), when other factors existed

to rouse suspicion). Finally, the surveillance officer who put out the flash

information had reasonable suspicion to justify a stop based on the two hand-

to-hand transactions he personally witnessed less than 40 minutes prior.

Commonwealth v. Queen, 639 A.2d 443, 445 (Pa. 1994) (“[A] stop and

frisk may be supported by a police radio bulletin only if evidence is offered at

the suppression hearing establishing the articulable facts [that] support the

reasonable suspicion.”) (emphasis in original).        Cf. Commonwealth v.

Shabezz, 129 A.3d 529 (Pa. Super. 205) (order granting suppression affirmed

where PARS report only stated defendant opened passenger door of car,

leaned in, and had conversation with driver; arresting officer testified that he

did not see any U.S. currency being exchanged, but only a “hand movement”

between defendant and unidentified driver of car, and “contained no mention

of pattern of narcotics activity at th[e] location” of stop).

       While it is well-established that presence in a high-crime area, alone,

cannot establish individualized suspicion, see Commonwealth v. Illinois v.

Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 853 A.2d

404 (Pa. Super. 2004), here, the surveillance officers’ detailed description in
____________________________________________

7 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(2) (non-precedential decisions of Superior Court filed

after May 1, 2019, may be cited for persuasive value).

                                           -9-
J-A01006-24

the PARS report of the hand-to-hand transactions they witnessed over the

course of less than one hour in the 900 block of North Carlisle Street,

combined with the fact that the physical description of the suspects matched

K.H.-C.’s clothing, provide the additional factors necessary to satisfy

reasonable suspicion. See PARS Report, 10/7/22, at 2 ¶ 2 (officer observes

unknown black male approach suspected sellers, engage in brief conversation,

one seller and unknown male cross street to grey Dodge Durango, seller opens

back door, reaches into car, and hands unknown male small item in exchange

for unknown amount of U.S. currency); id. at 2 ¶ 4 (officer observes unknown

black male approach one of suspected sellers who directs him to other

suspected seller; males walk together, stop at grey Dodge, engage in brief

conversation and suspected seller hands unknown male small items in

exchange for unknown amount of U.S. currency). Cf. Queen, supra at 445-

46 (suppression granted where suppression court “assumed” officer who

relayed police radio bulletin possessed required facts to conduct investigatory

stop but “did not have a description of the robbery suspect or the

circumstances surrounding the robbery”). Therefore, based on the totality of

the circumstances, we conclude that Officer Anthony “ha[d] a particularized

and objective basis for suspecting [K.H.-C.] of criminal activity” and that he

was not unlawfully seized. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 302 A.3d 737, 741

(Pa. 2023) (citation omitted).

      With regard to the legality of Officer Anthony’s search of K.H.-C. that

uncovered the gun, we recognize that in order to ensure an officer’s safety

                                    - 10 -
J-A01006-24

during an investigative detention, “police may ‘frisk’ or pat down a person for

weapons as recognized in Terry[, supra.]” Interest of T.W., 261 A.3d 409,

416 (Pa. 2021).     While a Terry frisk must be supported by “̀̀̀̀specific and

articulable facts indicating the person [] intend[ed] to [be] frisk[ed] may be

armed and dangerous[,]” Commonwealth v. Cooper, 994 A.3d 589, 593

(Pa. Super. 2010), the analysis is “guided by common sense concerns, giving

preference to the safety of the officer during an encounter with a suspect

where circumstances indicate that the suspect may have . . . a weapon.’”

Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 287 A.3d 1, 11 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation

omitted). Finally, an officer conducting a stop “need not be absolutely certain

that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man

in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or the

safety of others was in danger.” Commonwealth v. Cooper, 994 A.2d 589,

592 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted).

      Instantly, when Officer Anthony heard a metal sound when K.H.-C.

banged against the car, he had a reasonable suspicion that K.H.-C. may have

a weapon on his person. Moreover, in light of the fact that K.H.-C., himself,

admitted he had a Glock with an extended clip in his waistband and that the

officer was in an area known for increased violence and narcotics activity, he

was more than justified in seizing the weapon for safety purposes.        See

Foglia,   supra     (Court   acknowledging    weapons   commonly    hidden   in

waistband).   Cf.    Commonwealth v. Grahame, 7 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2010)

(officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct Terry search where she

                                     - 11 -
J-A01006-24

conducted protective search of defendant’s purse based on generalization that

firearms commonly found in close proximity to illegal drugs and officer did not

see defendant exhibit any unusual behavior or furtive movements or observe

any suspicious bulge in defendant’s purse).

      Order affirmed.

Date: 2/12/2024

                                    - 12 -