Court Opinion

ID: 9940582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 19:13:07.163248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:02.619556
License: Public Domain

J-A21007-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
    v.                                         :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
    IGNACIO MORALES                            :   No. 2672 EDA 2022

              Appeal from the Order Entered September 19, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-51-CR-0009076-2021

BEFORE:       BENDER, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                           FILED FEBRUARY 14, 2024

         The Commonwealth appeals from the trial court’s order granting

Appellee Ignacio Morales’s motion to suppress.1 The Commonwealth argues

that the trial court erred in concluding that the police were required to have a

warrant in order to arrest Appellee on his outdoor front porch. After careful

review, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

         The trial court summarized the underlying facts of this matter as follows:

         [O]n May 5, 2021, at around 6:00 p.m., [Philadelphia Police]
         Officer Brian Delricci viewed an Instagram Live video that depicted
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 In its notice of appeal, the Commonwealth certified that the trial court’s
suppression order would terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution
of its case. See Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) (stating that “in a criminal case, under the
circumstances provided by law, the Commonwealth may take an appeal as of
right from an order that does not end the entire case where the
Commonwealth certifies in the notice of appeal that the order will terminate
or substantially handicap the prosecution”). Notice of Appeal, 10/18/22; see
also Commonwealth’s Brief at 1.
J-A21007-23

       [Appellee] in a white shirt and a bedazzled ski mask brandishing
       a black firearm. The video then switched to a street-facing angle
       and showed [Appellee] walking down a sidewalk Officer Delricci
       recognized as the 100-block of East Albanus Street.

       The Instagram account had the username @phillyrambo20. The
       account user had posted pictures of [Appellee] prior to that day.
       Officer Delricci spoke to other police officers who knew [Appellee].
       They advised Officer Delricci that [Appellee] did not have a license
       to carry a firearm.

       Officer Delricci and his partner Officer Sidebothan[2] went to
       [Appellee’s] house at 147 East Albanus Street minutes
       after viewing the video. [Appellee] was sitting on his porch
       with his feet on the top step, still wearing the ski mask. The
       police officers arrested [Appellee] for possessing a firearm on a
       public street without a license and seized a black Glock firearm
       from him.

Trial Ct. Op., 12/16/22, at 2 (some formatting altered, citations omitted,

emphasis added).

       As a result of this encounter, the Commonwealth charged Appellee with

carrying a firearm without a license and carrying a firearm in public in

Philadelphia.3 Prior to trial, Appellee filed a motion to suppress in which he

argued that the police improperly arrested Appellee without a warrant. See

Motion to Suppress, 4/5/22, at 1-2 (unpaginated). Following a hearing on

September 19, 2022, the trial court granted Appellee’s motion.

____________________________________________

2 Officer Sidebothan’s first name does not appear in the record.

3 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6106 and 6108, respectively.
                                          Following a preliminary hearing
held before the Philadelphia Municipal Court on October 29, 2021, the
Municipal Court dismissed the charge for carrying a firearm in public in
Philadelphia.

                                           -2-
J-A21007-23

      The Commonwealth filed a timely notice of appeal and a court-ordered

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion

addressing the Commonwealth’s claim.

      The Commonwealth raises the following issues for our review, which we

have reordered as follows:

      1. [Whether the trial court erred in suppressing evidence] when
         the [trial] court concluded, contrary to binding Supreme Court
         of the United States precedent, that despite the existence of
         probable cause to arrest [Appellee], a warrant was required to
         arrest him on his outdoor front porch[?]

      2. [Whether the trial court erred in suppressing evidence] on a
         ground for which the Commonwealth was not given fair notice
         or a meaningful opportunity to disprove[?]

Commonwealth’s Brief at 4.

      In its first issue, the Commonwealth contends that Appellee’s motion to

suppress “lacked legal merit and should have been denied.” Commonwealth’s

Brief at 15. Specifically, the Commonwealth argues that because Appellee

was arrested on his front porch, where he could be seen from the street, the

police did not need a warrant to place him under arrest. Id. Further, the

Commonwealth emphasizes there is no dispute that police had probable cause

to believe that Appellee had committed a felony. See id. at 11; see also N.T.

Suppression Hr’g, 9/19/22, at 23 (reflecting that the trial court credited Officer

Delricci’s testimony and found that the officers had probable cause).

Therefore, the Commonwealth concludes that the trial court erred in granting

Appellee’s motion to suppress.

                                      -3-
J-A21007-23

      When reviewing a challenge to a suppression ruling, our standard of

review is

      limited to determining whether the suppression court’s factual
      findings are supported by the record and whether the legal
      conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Because the
      [defense] prevailed before 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
      suppression court’s factual findings are supported by the record,
      the appellate court is bound by those findings and may reverse
      only if the court’s legal conclusions are erroneous. Where the
      appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns on
      allegations of legal error, the suppression court’s legal conclusions
      are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to
      determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the
      facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject
      to plenary review.

Commonwealth v. Smith, 164 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation

omitted and formatting altered).     “Additionally, the Pennsylvania Supreme

Court has ruled that when reviewing a motion to suppress evidence, we may

not look beyond the suppression record.” Id. (citation omitted).

      The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the “Fourth

Amendment . . . prohibits the police from making a warrantless and

nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home in order to make a routine felony

arrest.”    Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 576 (1980); see also

Commonwealth v. Chisholm, 198 A.3d 407, 412 (Pa. Super. 2018)

(applying Payton).    In Pennsylvania, the police may arrest a suspect in a

public place without a warrant for a felony upon a showing of probable cause

                                      -4-
J-A21007-23

that a felony has been committed and that the person being arrested is the

suspected felon. Commonwealth v. Martin, 101 A.3d 706, 721 (Pa. 2014).

      The Commonwealth directs this Court to the Supreme Court of the

United States’ decision in United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976). In

Santana, the Philadelphia Police Department arrested the defendant in the

vestibule of her house without a warrant. Id. at 40. Ultimately, the High

Court held that for Fourth Amendment purposes, the threshold of one’s private

dwelling is a public place because the defendant does not enjoy any

expectation of privacy. Id. at 42.

      Here, in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court provided the following

analysis:

      The Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a warrant to
      arrest defendants in their home absent exigent circumstances or
      consent. Payton, 445 U.S. 576. This protection extends to the
      curtilage of the defendant’s house. Oliver v. United States, 466
      U.S. 170, 180 (1984). The police are not relieved of their
      obligation to obtain a warrant to arrest a defendant just because
      they seize him on the curtilage of his home rather than within its
      four walls. United States v. Perea-Rey, 680 F.3d 1179, 1184
      (9th Cir. 2012). The Supreme Court has provided guidance for
      discerning whether a particular place on person’s property
      constitutes curtilage to which Fourth Amendment protections
      extend. United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987)
      (identifying the central question as whether the place falls within
      the home’s umbrella and listing four factors: proximity, use,
      enclosure, and steps taken to conceal the place from passers-by).
      The Court has subsequently found that “the front porch is the

                                     -5-
J-A21007-23

       classic exemplar” of curtilage protected by the Fourth
       Amendment. Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 7 (2013).[4]

Trial Ct. Op. at 3 (some citations altered).

       It   is   well   settled   that   “[a]bsent   probable   cause   and   exigent

circumstances, warrantless searches and seizures in a private home violate

both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania

Constitution.”     Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 279 (Pa. Super.

2009) (citation omitted).          “These constitutional protections have been

extended to the curtilage of a person’s home. Curtilage has been defined in

constitutional context as in the common law, by reference to factors that

determine whether an individual reasonably may expect that an area

immediately adjacent to the home will remain private.” Id. (citations omitted

and some formatting altered).

        This Court has also stated that “[i]t is . . . well established that a person

cannot have a reasonable or justifiable expectation of privacy in things or

activities which are generally visible from some public vantage point.”

____________________________________________

4 We note that when the Supreme Court determined that the “front porch is

the classic exemplar” of curtilage protected by the Fourth Amendment in
Jardines, the Court did so in the context of reviewing what the Court
ultimately determined to be a warrantless search. See Jardines, 569 U.S. at
11-12. Specifically, the Court concluded that the “government’s use of trained
police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a
‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. The Jardines
Court, however, also noted that police officers “need not shield their eyes
when passing by [a] home on public thoroughfares, an officer’s leave to gather
information is sharply circumscribed when he steps off those thoroughfares
and enters the Fourth Amendment’s protected areas.” Id. at 7 (citations
omitted and formatting altered).

                                           -6-
J-A21007-23

Commonwealth v. Lemanski, 529 A.2d 1085, 1091 (Pa. Super. 1987)

(citing California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213 (1986)).         However, the

question of whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy

“must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.” Commonwealth v. Cruz, 166

A.3d 1249, 1256 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting City of Ontario v. Quon, 560

U.S. 746, 756-57 (2010)).

      In Gibbs, our Supreme Court held that a front porch does not constitute

curtilage where there is no gate, front yard, or other enclosed space preceding

or surrounding a porch that abuts a sidewalk. See Gibbs, 981 A.2d at 279.

In reaching that conclusion, the Gibbs Court explained:

      The evidence established that there was no front yard or other
      enclosed space preceding or surrounding the porch; rather, the
      porch butted up against the sidewalk. There was no gate blocking
      entry to the porch and nothing else which would indicate that the
      porch was closed to members of the general public. Further, the
      porch was an empty, unenclosed, concrete slab that was used by
      deliverymen and visitors to the apartment.

Id. at 280 (citations omitted).

      In the instant case, the trial court addressed Appellee’s suppression

claim as follows:

      Here, Officer Delricci and his partner arrested [Appellee] as he sat
      on his front porch. [Appellee’s] porch is connected to his home.
      It is set back approximately 30 feet from the street and sits atop
      a flight of steps. It was enclosed by a railing and has an awning,
      partially shielding it from view. There is a small, fenced-in yard
      between the public sidewalk and the porch where [Appellee]
      stored recycling bins. On these facts, [Appellee’s] porch fell within
      the “umbrella” of his home, and his location there entitled him to
      the Fourth Amendment’s protection from a warrantless arrest
      absent exigency, which the Commonwealth does not claim here.

                                      -7-
J-A21007-23

                                      *        *   *

       Finally, [Appellee’s] porch had a railing and an awning that
       extended from the house and enclosed the area, and there was
       no testimony about public use. Gibbs does not apply.

       Because [Appellee] was within the curtilage of his home as he sat
       on his porch, the police were required to obtain a warrant for his
       arrest. The firearm was recovered incident to an unlawful arrest
       and was properly suppressed.

Trial Ct. Op. at 3-5.

       Following our review, we conclude that the record does not support the

trial court’s factual findings and that the legal conclusions drawn from those

conclusions were in error. See Smith, 164 A.3d at 1257. There is no dispute

that the police arrived at Appellee’s residence, within minutes of viewing the

video, and that he was seated on the front porch, still wearing the ski mask,

with his feet on the top step of the stairs that lead from the porch to the

sidewalk. See N.T. Suppression Hr’g at 20. During the suppression hearing,

the Commonwealth introduced a photograph depicting the front of Appellee’s

house. See N.T. Suppression Hr’g, at 11.5,6 The photograph demonstrates

that the area where Appellee was seated was not covered by an awning, does

not have a railing, and is not behind the fence that encloses Appellee’s front

yard on one side of the property. See id. Further, there is no fence or gate

____________________________________________

5 A copy of Commonwealth’s Exhibit 5 is included in the trial court’s opinion.

See Trial Ct. Op. at 4.

6 During the suppression hearing, Appellee used Commonwealth’s Exhibit 5 to

describe his house. Id. at 19-20.

                                           -8-
J-A21007-23

blocking access from the sidewalk to the steps leading up to the front porch,

which is visible from the street.     See id.       On this record, there was no

evidence to support an assertion that Appellee had a reasonable expectation

of privacy in that area. See Gibbs, 981 A.2d at 279; see also Lemanski,

529 A.2d 1085. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s motion

to suppress.

     In its remaining issue, the Commonwealth contends that the trial court

erred in granting Appellee’s suppression motion based on grounds that were

“not stated with specificity in [Appellee’s] written motion to suppress.”

Commonwealth’s     Brief   at   12.    In   light    of   our   disposition   of   the

Commonwealth’s first issue, this issue is now moot.

     For these reasons, we reverse the trial court’s order granting Appellee’s

motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings consistent with this

memorandum.

     Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 2/14/2024

                                      -9-