Court Opinion

ID: 9535010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:44:38.555395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:09.282044
License: Public Domain

FLAHERTY, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. It is common knowledge that roadside encounters between police and occupants of vehicles have a particular *423potential to be hazardous, in that danger may arise from the presence of weapons in the vehicles. Consistent with the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, a police officer can, to protect his own safety, order the driver to alight from a vehicle that has been stopped for a routine traffic offense. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977). The mere fact that a vehicle has been stopped for a traffic offense does not, however, entitle the police to conduct a search of the vehicle and its occupants. Commonwealth v. Dussell, 439 Pa. 392, 266 A.2d 659 (1970). Accord Commonwealth v. Lopez, 415 Pa.Super. 252, 609 A.2d 177 (1992), appeal denied, 533 Pa. 598, 617 A.2d 1273 (1992).
We have long recognized that there are limited circumstances where police, having made a legitimate stop of a vehicle, can undertake a protective search to ensure that there are no weapons available to the vehicle occupants. In Commonwealth v. Lewis, 442 Pa. 98, 101, 275 A.2d 51, 52 (1971), we stated:
To justify ... a [warrantless] search ..., an officer must have independent probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed by the occupants of the vehicle, or that it has been used in the furtherance of the commission of a felony, or the officer must have a basis for believing that evidence of a crime is concealed within the vehicle, or that there are weapons therein which are accessible to the occupants.
(Emphasis added). Accord Commonwealth v. Milyak, 508 Pa. 2, 8, 493 A.2d 1346, 1349 (1985); Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 447 Pa. 91, 104, 288 A.2d 727, 735 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 867, 93 S.Ct. 164, 34 L.Ed.2d 116 (1972).
In Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049-50, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3480-3481, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201, 1220 (1983), the Supreme Court of the United States defined the basis on which, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, police who have made a legitimate stop of a vehicle may conduct a limited search of the vehicle’s passenger compartment to- determine whether weapons are present:
*424[T]he search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant” the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. See Terry [v. Ohio], 392 U.S. at 21, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868 [at 1879]....
(Footnote omitted).
A mere stop of a motorist for a traffic offense does not, without more, provide a basis for a search of the vehicle and its occupants. Commonwealth v. Dussell, supra; Commonwealth v. Lopez, supra. The very limited search permitted under Michigan v. Long provides, however, a reasonable measure of protection for police officers in situations where there is not probable cause to support a more thorough search of the vehicle pursuant to Commonwealth v. Lewis, supra. Further, it has been suggested that Lewis could be read as allowing a weapons search to occur in the absence of probable cause whenever there is any basis for an officer’s belief that weapons are present.. Michigan v. Long clearly limits Lewis in that regard.
In determining whether any given protective search of a vehicle was justified, the issue is whether “‘a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.’ ” Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. at 1050, 103 S.Ct. at 3481, 77 L.Ed.2d at 1220 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. at 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d at 909). Further, “[i]f, while conducting a legitimate Terry search of the interior of the automobile, the officer should ... discover contraband other than weapons, he clearly cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its sup-pression____” Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. at 1050, 103 S.Ct. at 3481, 77 L.Ed.2d at 1220.
*425Applying the standard set forth in Michigan v. Long to the present case does not, however, support the conclusion of the trial court that the search of appellant’s bag was justified. When the officer opened the bag and searched through its contents, there were not facts that would reasonably have warranted him in believing that appellant was dangerous and that appellant might gain immediate control of weapons.
Although the observations made by the officer may have instilled in him a degree of suspicion or curiosity about appellant’s activities, mere suspicion or curiosity is not a substitute for the specific and articulable facts needed to support a search for weapons. Most of the officer’s observations concerned matters that presaged absolutely no danger, for example, that appellant was parked legally on a residential street, that another car parked nearby and drove away, that appellant failed to use his turn signal, that appellant was wearing a pager beeper, etc. Indeed, the only factors that could arguably have portended any danger were appellant’s disobedience of the instruction to place his hands on the steering wheel, coupled with the sudden movement of his hands towards the floor beneath the driver’s seat, and the unexplained presence of the metal pipe between the seat and the door.
Before the bag was searched, however, the officer completed a pat-down search of appellant and found nothing of a suspicious nature. He also glanced under the driver’s seat and determined that no weapons were present there, such being the area where appellant had suddenly reached in disobedience of the officer’s initial directive to place his hands on the steering wheel. Regardless of whether the pat-down search and the glance under the seat were justified, it is clear that the search of the bag was not. If the officer initially believed that appellant was dangerous and had access to weapons, that concern should certainly have dissipated when the pat-down search and the glance under the driver’s seat revealed nothing of significance. In short, the situation did not reasonably warrant the officer in believing that a search of the bag was necessary to protect his safety.
*426The trial court erred, therefore, in concluding that the search of appellant’s bag was proper. The suppression motion should have been granted.
ZAPPALA and CAPPY, JJ., join this dissenting opinion.