Court Opinion

ID: 9398532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 16:11:03.413316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:34.247601
License: Public Domain

J-A01002-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    OMAR PRIOLEAU                              :   No. 1031 EDA 2022

                 Appeal from the Order Entered March 28, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-51-CR-0003171-2020

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.:                               FILED MAY 31, 2023

       The Commonwealth appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia

County Court of Common Pleas suppressing the physical evidence recovered

after a traffic stop of Omar Prioleau’s (Appellee’s) car. The Commonwealth

argues the trial court erred by finding the officers did not have reasonable

suspicion or probable cause to stop Appellee’s vehicle based on violations of

the Philadelphia Parking Code1 (the Code). After careful consideration, we

reverse the trial court’s suppression order and remand for further proceedings.

____________________________________________

1  Phila. Code, §§ 12-XXX-XX-XXXX; https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/
codes/philadelphia/latest/philadelphia_pa/0-0-0-266407.
J-A01002-23

        On January 11, 2020, around 9:49 p.m., Philadelphia Police Officers

Michael Sidebotham2 and Ryan Del Ricci initiated a traffic stop after observing

a vehicle they believed to be illegally parked in a bus zone with the engine

running. N.T., 2/4/22, at 15-16, 31. Officer Sidebotham noted the vehicle

and the driver — Appellee — matched descriptions of a perpetrator and

getaway car from a December 16, 2019, homicide investigation. Id. at 17,

19. The officers arrested Appellee and confiscated his clothing — allegedly

the same worn during the murder — a ski mask, and marijuana. Id. at 7, 19-

20, 24. He was subsequently charged with, inter alia, first-degree murder3 in

relation to the December 2019 homicide.

        On August 18, 2021, Appellee filed a motion to suppress all physical

evidence recovered from the traffic stop, arguing the officers did not have

reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the vehicle, and consequently,

any evidence from the subsequent warrantless search was illegally obtained.

See Appellee’s Motion to Suppress the Physical Evidence, 8/18/21, at 2

(unpaginated). On February 4, 2022, the court held a suppression hearing,

where the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Officer Sidebotham, as

summarized below.

____________________________________________

2 The notes of testimony spell Officer Sidebotham’s name “Sitdeotham.”
However, the certified record spells his name “Sidebotham.” Thus, we use
this spelling.

3   18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a).

                                           -2-
J-A01002-23

        Officer Sidebotham testified that on December 16, 2019, a homicide

occurred in the area of 67th Avenue and North Broad Street in Philadelphia.

N.T. at 7. Two days after the murder, Philadelphia Homicide Detective Cutler4

contacted Officer Sidebotham so he could review surveillance footage of the

crime. Id. The video showed the perpetrator — who had a tattoo on his hand,

and was wearing “black tattered jeans,” a black cardigan, and “green military-

colored shoes with distinct black soles”5 — shooting the victim and fleeing the

scene. See id. at 7-9, 19-20. Officer Sidebotham also reviewed “stills” of the

getaway car — a 2008 gray Infiniti G35x, with “silver or gray” rims and a

Pennsylvania tag LBM-2931. Id. at 9-11, 17. On January 7, 2020, Detective

Cutler contacted Officer Sidebotham to inform him the getaway car from the

December 16, 2019, homicide was parked two blocks away from the crime

scene. Id. at 11.

        A few days later, on January 11th, Officers Sidebotham and Del Ricci,

were on patrol in the area of 68th Avenue and North Broad Street. N.T. at 6,

13. Near 6802 North Broad Street, Officer Sidebotham saw a car parked on

top of a white “X” box on the street “in front of a bus lane stop[.]” Id. at 15-

16. The bus zone was marked by a sign, which stated “no parking” with an

arrow pointing to the left. Id. at 32-33. The vehicle was parked to the right
____________________________________________

4   Detective Cutler’s first name does not appear in the record.

5 From the testimony elicited at the suppression hearing, it appears the
homicide suspect was also wearing a ski mask in the surveillance footage.
See N.T. at 29-30.

                                           -3-
J-A01002-23

of the sign. Id. at 33. The officers pulled behind the car, activated their

lights, and initiated a traffic stop. Id. at 31-32.

      Officer Sidebotham acknowledged no buses passed while he observed

the vehicle parked in that location and did not state how long the car was idle

before he initiated the traffic stop. N.T. at 33. However, he did note that he

did not “sit on it for a while” before activating his lights. See id. In his report,

the officer stated he stopped the vehicle because the “engine [was] running

in a bus zone, sign posted also with a large X on the pavement marking no

car zone.” Id. at 31. However, at the hearing, Officer Sidebotham testified

he noticed the car because “[i]t matched the description of the stills [of the

getaway vehicle from the December 2019 homicide] and it had the same style

rims, either silver or gray.”    Id. at 17. Though the vehicle had the same

license plate as the getaway car, he did not recall if he noticed this before or

after activating his lights.    Id. at 36.   Officer Sidebotham admitted at the

hearing that he had “[n]o idea” how a 2008 Infiniti G35x would differ from the

same model manufactured in another year. Id. at 35.

      Officer Sidebotham approached the vehicle, and when the occupants

rolled down the windows, he smelled marijuana coming from the inside. N.T.

at 29. There were three occupants in the vehicle. See id. at 22. Appellee

was in the driver’s seat “wearing black tattered jeans[ in] the same style” as

the perpetrator from the December 2019 murder.               Id. at 19.     Officer

Sidebotham testified that because the vehicle matched the description of the

getaway car, and Appellee matched the description of the December 2019

                                       -4-
J-A01002-23

homicide suspect, he asked all of the occupants to exit the vehicle. Id. at 22.

Once Appellee was out of the car, Officer Sidebotham noticed that he was

wearing “the same” black cardigan and “very distinct sneakers” as the

perpetrator in the surveillance video. Id. at 20. The officer also saw that

Appellee, like the perpetrator in the video, had a tattoo on his hand, but it is

unclear from the testimony when he saw the tattoo.                See id. at 19-20

(testifying he asked Appellee to exit the car after seeing his jeans and “once

[Appellee] exit[ed] the vehicle[,]” he noticed, inter alia, the tattoo), 21-22

(stating that when he “initially approached the vehicle[,]” the officer saw

Appellee’s hands).

       After Appellee and the other two passengers6 exited the vehicle, the

officers placed Appellee in handcuffs and contacted Detective Cutler. N.T. at

23-24. Officer Sidebotham “held the scene for a search warrant[,]” but before

commencing a search, he saw “a ski mask[7] . . . and some marijuana in the

back seat” of the car.       Id. at 24.        Officer Sidebotham then searched8 the

____________________________________________

6 One of the car’s passengers, Brandon McKelvy, was arrested for an
outstanding warrant unrelated to the present appeal or the 2019 homicide.
See N.T. at 23. The remaining passenger, Dante Carter, was free to leave
the scene. Id.

7 Officer Sidebotham clarified the ski mask recovered from the vehicle search
“didn’t match the type of ski mask that the shooter was wearing” during the
2019 homicide. N.T. at 29-30.

8It is not apparent from Officer Sidebotham’s testimony if he secured a search
warrant before entering the vehicle.

                                           -5-
J-A01002-23

interior and trunk of the vehicle, but did not recover any further evidence. 9

Id. at 25-26. Officers Sidebotham and Del Ricci transported Appellee to the

police station where they collected his clothing and shoes as evidence related

to the 2019 homicide. Id. at 26-27.

       After the hearing, the trial court entered an order granting Appellee’s

motion to suppress the physical evidence obtained from the vehicle search.

Order, 3/28/22.10 The Commonwealth timely filed an appeal11 and certified

that   the    court’s    suppression      order   “terminate[d]   or   substantially

handicap[ped]” its prosecution of the case. See Commonwealth’s Notice of

Appeal, 4/11/22; Pa.R.A.P. 311(d).

       The Commonwealth raises one issue on appeal:

       Did the [trial] court err in suppressing physical evidence,
       particularly clothing worn by [Appellee,] which supported the
       inference that he was the perpetrator of a homicide, where the
       evidence was discovered by the police when they lawfully stopped
       the vehicle he was driving?

Commonwealth’s Brief at 4.
____________________________________________

9Additional officers arrived at some point during the search. See N.T. at 26.
One of them transported McKelvy to police headquarters. Id.

10The trial court subsequently issued “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law” pertaining to this matter on June 21, 2022. See Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, 6/21/22.

11On May 2, 2022, the Commonwealth complied with the trial court’s order
and filed a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). As noted above, the trial court filed its Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law on June 21st, followed by a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion
on June 24th. See Trial Ct. Op., 6/24/22.

                                           -6-
J-A01002-23

     When reviewing a challenge to a suppression order, we apply the

following standard of review:

     [A]n appellate court is required to determine whether the record
     supports the suppression court’s factual findings and whether the
     inferences and legal conclusions drawn by the suppression court
     from those findings are appropriate. [Where the defendant]
     prevailed in the suppression court, we may consider only the
     evidence of the defense and so much of the evidence for the
     Commonwealth as remains uncontradicted when read in the
     context of the record as a whole. Where the record supports the
     factual findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those
     facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn
     therefrom are in error. However, where the appeal of the
     determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of
     legal error, the suppression court’s conclusions of law are not
     binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the
     suppression court properly applied the law to the facts.

Commonwealth v. Tillery, 249 A.3d 278, 280 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citations

omitted).

     There are three categories of interactions police can have with civilians:

            The first is a mere encounter, sometimes referred to as a
     consensual encounter, which does not require the officer to have
     any suspicion that the citizen is or has been engaged in criminal
     activity. This interaction also does not compel the citizen to stop
     or respond to the officer. A mere encounter does not constitute a
     seizure, as the citizen is free to choose whether to engage with
     the officer and comply with any requests made or, conversely, to
     ignore the officer and continue on his or her way.

            The second type of interaction, an investigative detention,
     is a temporary detention of a citizen. This interaction constitutes
     a seizure of a person, and to be constitutionally valid police must
     have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.

           The third, a custodial detention, is the functional equivalent
     of an arrest and must be supported by probable cause. . . .

                                    -7-
J-A01002-23

Commonwealth v. Adams, 205 A.3d 1195, 1199-1200 (Pa. 2019) (citations

omitted & paragraph breaks added), cert denied, 140 S.Ct. 2703 (U.S. 2020).

      Regarding traffic stops, this Court has stated the following:

            A police officer has the authority to stop a vehicle when he
      or she has reasonable suspicion that a violation of the vehicle code
      has taken place, for the purpose of obtaining necessary
      information to enforce the provisions of the [Motor Vehicle C]ode.
      75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6308(b). However, if the violation is such that it
      requires no additional investigation, the officer must have
      probable cause to initiate the stop.

             Put another way, if the officer has a legitimate expectation
      of investigatory results, the existence of reasonable suspicion will
      allow the stop — if the officer has no such expectations of learning
      additional relevant information concerning the suspected criminal
      activity, the stop cannot be constitutionally permitted on the basis
      of mere suspicion.

                                  *    *    *

            The police have probable cause where the facts and
      circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to
      warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an
      offense has been or is being committed. We evaluate probable
      cause by considering all relevant facts under a totality of
      circumstances analysis.

Commonwealth v. Spence, 290 A.3d 301, 312 (Pa. Super. 2023) (emphasis

& some citations omitted).

      Returning to the Commonwealth’s argument, it avers the court erred

when it suppressed the physical evidence recovered after the traffic stop.

Commonwealth’s Brief at 13. It insists that even though Appellee’s car was

parked behind the “no parking” sign, thus complying with its directive, the car

was still in violation of traffic regulations. Id. at 16-17. The Commonwealth

                                      -8-
J-A01002-23

contends that Appellee was stopped in a box with a large white “X” painted on

the street, which also signals a no parking zone.        Id. at 17-18.     The

Commonwealth maintains that the trial court erroneously relied on Coard v.

City of Philadelphia, 2018 WL 844818 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018), a non-

precedential Commonwealth Court opinion,12 when it stated that “posted signs

designat[e] where parking is prohibited[,] not any markings on the

pavement.” Id. at 20, citing Trial Ct. Op., at 7. It argues that Coard “does

not support the conclusion that roadway markings need not be followed” as

the trial court suggests. Commonwealth’s Brief at 20.

       Moreover, the Commonwealth maintains that even if Appellee was

parked legally, the totality of the circumstances supported the traffic stop.

Commonwealth’s Brief at 23. It avers that the officers saw a car stopped

“within a ‘box’ . . . that had a large white X[;]” thus they had a “legitimate

belief” that the car was stopped illegally. Id. at 23-24. The Commonwealth

contends that this observation, combined with the officers recognizing the

vehicle as the getaway car from a recent homicide, justified initiating further

investigation. Id.

____________________________________________

12Decisions of the Commonwealth Court are not binding upon this Court, but
may serve as persuasive authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(1)-(2) (unreported
memorandum opinions of the Commonwealth Court filed after January 15,
2008, may be cited as persuasive authority); Commonwealth v. Bowers,
185 A.3d 358, 362 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2018) (Commonwealth Court decisions are
not binding on this Court but may be used as persuasive authority).

                                           -9-
J-A01002-23

      In response, Appellee argues that while pavement markings are

“legitimate means of communicating certain vehicular conduct,” here they are

“irrelevant.” Appellee’s Brief at 22-23. Appellee contends that traffic control

devices “ha[ve] a specific purpose[,]” which is to guide traffic, not “demarcate

a fixed use area.” Id. at 23-24. He maintains that to honor the pavement

markings in this matter would render Section 12-913(1)(a)(.9) of the

Philadelphia Parking Code superfluous. See id. at 24. Further, he insists that

under “the plain language of [the Code], the white ‘X’ on the pavement did

not legally create a no-parking zone.” Id. at 25.

      In the alternative, Appellee avers that even if he was parked in a bus

zone, under Section 12-909 of the Code, he may “temporarily stop . . . for the

purpose of and while actually engaged in the loading or unloading of

passengers[.]”   Appellee’s Brief at 26, citing Phila. Code. § 12-909.       He

maintains that there was no testimony at the suppression hearing that he was

parked in the bus zone for a significant amount of time or that he was not

loading or unloading passengers. Id. at 27.

      Pertinent to the issue on appeal, we note that generally, the Motor

Vehicle Code is the controlling law for traffic violations. However, when both

the Motor Vehicle Code and local ordinances provide for the same conduct and

the offense is rooted in a parking violation — not a moving violation — we

apply local ordinances. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 6301 (“Except for parking violations,

when the same conduct is proscribed under [the Motor Vehicle Code] and a

local ordinance, the charge shall be brought under this title and not under the

                                     - 10 -
J-A01002-23

local ordinance. . . .”). As the underlying traffic stop stems from a parking

violation, we apply Philadelphia’s local parking code to our analysis.

      Relevant herein, the Code dictates:

      Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or to
      protect the safety of any person or vehicle or in compliance with
      law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic-control
      device, no person shall [s]top, stand or park a vehicle . . . [a]t
      any place where official signs prohibit stopping.

Phila. Code § 12-913(1)(a)(.9). “Official traffic control device[s]” include:

      All signs, signals, markings and devices placed or erected by state
      or city officials having jurisdiction for the purpose of regulating,
      warning, or guiding traffic, in accordance with the provisions of
      The Vehicle Code.

Phila. Code § 12-102(11). “No operator shall violate the instructions of any

official traffic-control device[.]” Phila. Code § 12-1202(1).

      Further, generally, “[w]hen signs are erected giving notice thereof, no

operator shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in . . . a designated bus stop[.]”

Phila. Code § 12-901(1)(b). The Code defines a bus stop as “[a] fixed area in

the roadway parallel and adjacent to the curb set aside for the expeditious

loading and unloading of passengers only.” Phila. Code § 12-102(4). The

Code also provides for the following exception to this rule:

      No person shall stop, stand, or park a vehicle other than a bus in
      a bus stop or bus stand . . . except that the operator of a
      passenger vehicle may temporarily stop therein for the purpose of
      and while actually engaged in loading or unloading passengers
      when such stopping does not interfere with any bus . . . about to
      enter such stand.

Phila. Code § 12-909(1).

                                     - 11 -
J-A01002-23

      We note that the trial court did not make any findings pertaining to the

search of Appellee’s vehicle after the stop or his subsequent arrest in either

its June 21st Findings of Fact or June 24th opinion. See Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law, at 1-3; Trial Ct. Op., at 1-7. Rather, the court’s decision

to grant Appellee’s suppression motion was based solely on the purported

illegality of the initial traffic stop. The trial court opined:

      In the instant case the only specific, articulable fact that Officer
      Sidebotham possessed was that the vehicle they were stopping,
      was stopped with the engine running, behind a sign that
      prohibited parking in front of the sign. Philadelphia Code § 12-
      901(1)(b) prohibits parking in a designated bus zone, which is the
      provision that was relied on in this case as the justification for this
      vehicle stop.

            However, it is the posted signs designating where parking is
      prohibited that is controlling, not any markings on the pavement.
      Coard[, 2018 WL 844818]. Here, the vehicle was stopped within
      the large “X” marking on the road, but it was behind the area that
      the sign designated as the no parking zone. The officer could not
      come up with any specific articulable facts for stopping the car —
      he did not remember when he saw the license plate, and he was
      not able to see inside the vehicle until after he was approaching
      the car and the occupants rolled down the windows. [Appellee]
      did not attempt to flee, was not looking around furtively, nor was
      he the subject of a radio call or complaint.

             There was absolutely no interaction between the police
      officers and [Appellee]. There was a complete lack of specific,
      articulable facts which would warrant a man of reasonable caution
      in the belief that criminality was afoot and that the action of
      stopping the idling vehicle, parked behind the signed prohibited
      area was the appropriate action to be taken.

Trial Ct. Op., at 6-7 (paragraph breaks added). We disagree with the trial

court’s conclusions.

                                       - 12 -
J-A01002-23

       First, we note that the trial court’s reliance on Coard is misplaced. In

Coard, the defendant received a parking ticket for parking in a bus zone.

Coard, 2018 WL 844818, at *1. He challenged the ticket, arguing that while

the bus zone was denoted by a sign, it was not designated by pavement

markings, as required by the Code.13           Id.   The Bureau of Administrative

Adjudication14 (BAA) affirmed his citation and he appealed to the Parking

Appeals Panel. Id. The defendant argued that even though there was a sign

posted, his car was parked “between the sign and a big ‘X’ in a box . . . on the

pavement[,]” which designated the no parking zone. Id. The Appeals Panel

affirmed the citation, stating “[t]he regulation is established by the postage

signage and not the marking on the ground.”              Id. (quotation marks &

emphasis omitted). He then appealed to the trial court, which reversed the

BAA’s decision, noting that no parking zones are

       presumed to be marked with painted lines on the roadway[ and
       a]lthough signs may also be erected under [the Code] they do not
       alter the Streets Department’s demarcation of designated areas.
       Thus, [the trial court] held the BAA erred in finding a violation
       when [the defendant’s] vehicle was not parked in an area
       designated by pavement markings.

Id. at *2 (quotation marks & record citation omitted).

____________________________________________

13 The Philadelphia Parking Code was the governing local ordinance for the
area in which the defendant received a parking ticket.

14 The BAA is responsible for the resolution of parking ticket disputes in the
City of Philadelphia. See https://www.phila.gov/departments/bureau-of-
administrative-adjudication/.

                                          - 13 -
J-A01002-23

      The City of Philadelphia appealed the decision to the Commonwealth

Court, arguing the Code does not require pavement markings to denote a bus

zone, but only signage. Coard, 2018 WL 844818, *2. The Commonwealth

Court concluded the no parking sign gave the defendant notice that parking

his vehicle in front of the sign was prohibited. Id. at *5. It noted that the

trial court’s interpretation of the Code “disregarded the purpose of signage”

which “prohibited parking where he parked.”        Id. (emphasis in original).

Further, it stated:

      We are unpersuaded by [the defendant’s] argument, which the
      trial court adopted, that designation must be shown by painted
      lines on the pavement.      There is simply no basis for that
      requirement in the Code. In reaching its conclusion, the trial court
      ignored the plain language of Section 12-901 that imposed
      prohibitions “when signs are erected.”

Id. (record citation omitted); see also Phila. Code § 12-901(1)(b) (“When

signs are erected giving notice thereof, no operator shall stop, stand or park

a vehicle in . . . a designated bus stop[.]).         We conclude Coard is

distinguishable from the present facts.

      In Coard, the Commonwealth Court determined the defendant

committed a parking violation when he parked in front of a sign, which

unequivocally stated, “no parking” and “bus zone.” The Commonwealth Court

rejected the argument that pavement markings, not signs, designated no

parking zones. However, the Court did not suggest that one should ignore

pavement markings all together and only comply with the directives of

signage. Instead, it based its decision on the fact that the posted signage

                                     - 14 -
J-A01002-23

“prohibited parking where he parked.”          Coard, 2018 WL 844818, at *5

(emphasis omitted). Insinuating that this reasoning then lends itself to the

conclusion that individuals may entirely ignore pavement markings is not

supported by the Commonwealth Court’s analysis.            Moreover, even if we

accepted the trial court’s interpretation of Coard, the opinion is non-

precedential. Thus, it can only be cited as persuasive authority, and we would

decline to apply that rationale to the present facts.

      Returning to the present matter, we conclude that under the Code,

Appellee was parked illegally.     Though Appellee was parked behind a sign

which dictated a no parking zone in front of it, his vehicle was on top of a

traffic control device marker — a large white “X” — communicating that no

parking was allowed in that space.        See Phila. Code § 12-1202(1) (“No

operator shall violate the instructions of any official traffic-control device[.]”);

Phila. Code § 12-102(11) (traffic control devices include markings erected by

state or city officials). As such, the traffic stop was supported by probable

cause. See Spence, 290 A.3d at 312 (probable cause exists where police

have a reasonable belief that a criminal offense has been committed). The

parties seem to imply that whether Appellee committed a violation heavily

relies on whether he was stopped in a bus zone. However, regardless of the

borders of the bus zone, Appellee was violating a local traffic ordinance. The

traffic control device at issue — a large white “X” painted next to a curb —

communicates to drivers that parking in that area was prohibited.

                                      - 15 -
J-A01002-23

      We reject Appellee’s argument that pavement markings are “irrelevant”

and would render signs superfluous. See Appellee’s Brief at 22-24. In fact,

to adopt his interpretation would result in a traffic control device — markings

— becoming superfluous.      We decline to conclude that only one of these

mechanisms need be obeyed in this instance.

      Appellee also argues that Section 12-909 of the Code provides an

applicable exception. See Appellee’s Brief at 26. We disagree. This Section

allows for a vehicle to temporarily stop in a bus zone while “actually engaged

in loading or unloading passengers[.]” See Phila. Code § 12-909. Appellee

is correct that there was no testimony that he was parked for a significant

amount of time. However, there was also no evidence presented suggesting

that he was “actually engaged in” the conduct which lends itself to the

exception.   The officer did not observe another individual approaching or

leaving the vehicle before initiating the stop.

      Moreover, even if Appellee parked in a legal parking space, the totality

of the circumstances supported a valid traffic stop.      Officer Sidebotham

testified that he was participating in an ongoing homicide investigation. See

N.T. at 7. About one month after the crime, he observed a vehicle matching

the description of the perpetrator’s getaway car parked about one block away

from the scene of the murder. See id. at 13, 15, 17. Specifically, the officer

recounted that he recognized the vehicle from the “stills of the getaway car”

he saw during the investigation and it “had the same style rims, either silver

                                     - 16 -
J-A01002-23

or gray.”15 See id. at 9-10, 17. The matching vehicle description coupled

with its proximity to the homicide supported the officers’ decision to initiate

further investigation.

       Thus, on the narrow issue of whether the traffic stop was valid, we

disagree with the trial court’s determination. Appellee may not ignore a traffic

control device in favor of other mandates absent direction from police. See

Phila. Code § 12-1202 (vehicles may violate a traffic control device when

“directed by . . . police[ ]”); see also Trial Ct. Op., at 7. Further, we conclude

the officers had probable cause to initiate a traffic stop when Appellee’s vehicle

was parked in violation of the Code and the totality of the circumstances

demonstrated that the vehicle was potentially connected to an ongoing murder

investigation. As the issue before us concerns only the validity of the initial

traffic stop, we express no opinion as to the legitimacy of the subsequent

search.

       Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction

relinquished.

____________________________________________

15 The vehicle’s license plate also matched the plate of the getaway car.
However, we reiterate that Officer Sidebotham was unsure of whether he
recognized this before or after he initiated the traffic stop. See N.T. at 36.

                                          - 17 -
J-A01002-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/31/2023

                          - 18 -