Court Opinion

ID: 9895863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 20:10:40.284241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:21.459204
License: Public Domain

J-S21043-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  SAQUANA TAWANE LAYER                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1489 MDA 2022

        Appeal from the Suppression Order Entered October 13, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
                         CP-67-CR-0005925-2021

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 08, 2023

       I agree with the Majority, except with respect to the conclusion

concerning the protective sweep of the second floor. See Majority Mem. at

13 (stating that the police “failed to articulate sufficient facts to justify the

second level search beyond the areas immediately adjoining the arrest” on

the first floor).

       In its opinion, the trial court recognized that the protective sweep

permitted the police officers to look for a person or persons on the second

floor of the house. See Rule 1925(a) Op., 12/22/22, at 8. However, the trial

court concluded that the officers exceeded the permissible scope of the sweep,

which authorized a search for a person who could pose a danger to the officers,

and instead the officers unreasonably discerned specks of suspected
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S21024-23

marijuana “amongst a variety of other items” sitting on top of a dresser. Id.

at 9. I agree with the trial court’s conclusion.

       In my view, police had sufficient basis to conduct a protective sweep of

the second floor including places such as bathrooms, closets, and spaces

where a person could hide based on the movement of the blinds at the front

window on the second floor observed by Officer Adam Nothstein.1 See Buie

v. Maryland, 494 U.S. 325, 335 (1990); Commonwealth v. Taylor, 771

A.2d 1261, 1267 (Pa. 2001). However, I agree that the search of the dresser

was outside the scope of a protective sweep.

       The record reflects that Officer Pete Fouad stated as follows:

       During the service of the [arrest] warrant [for Hightower], I
       observed loose marijuana on a dresser along with “Lemon Cherry
       Gelato” resealable bags, and a box of clear sandwich baggies. The
       top drawer of the dresser was slightly opened, and it contained
       wads of cash. All items were in plain view. Based on the above
       information, I obtained a search warrant for the residence.

Complaint (Affidavit of Prob. Cause), 11/3/21. Further, Officer Fouad testified

that he saw wads of cash in the open drawer.         See N.T., 4/8/22, at 54.

However, the trial court concluded that Officer Fouad’s testimony concerning

the open drawer was not credible, as crime scene photos revealed that the

drawer was closed.       See Trial Ct. Op., 10/13/22, at 4-5, 9.   Because the

search warrant was based, in part, on the “wads of cash” Officer Fouad

allegedly saw, and because the trial court did not credit this testimony, the

____________________________________________

1 See N.T., 4/8/22, at 40.

                                           -2-
J-S21024-23

only remaining information supporting the search warrant were “specks” of

suspected marijuana allegedly observed during the protective sweep. See id.

at 8.

        Protective sweeps are limited, and they must be swift and target areas

where a person could reasonably be expected to hide. Commonwealth

v. Crouse, 729 A. 2d 588, 598 (Pa. Super. 1999) (emphasis added). Further,

a protective sweep “must be supported by articulable facts and inferences

giving rise to reasonable suspicion that the area to be swept harbors an

individual posing a danger to the police.” Id. The trial court noted that Officer

Fouad admitted that a person could not fit behind the dresser or in the dresser

drawers. See Rule 1925(a) Op., 12/22/22, at 9. On this record, I agree with

the trial court that a search for persons hiding on the second floor would not

have led a reasonably prudent officer to observe loose specks of suspected

marijuana on top of a dresser. See Trial Ct. Op., 10/13/22, at 8. Therefore,

although I conclude that police were permitted to conduct a protective sweep

of the second floor for hidden persons due to the movement of the blinds,

because the trial court found Officer Fouad’s testimony not credible concerning

the open dresser drawer, I agree that there was insufficient cause to search

the interior of the dresser based on the observation of small specks of

marijuana on top of the dresser during the sweep. For these reasons, I agree

with the Majority that suppression is warranted, and I concur in the result.

                                      -3-