Court Opinion

ID: 9405992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 16:10:09.63381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:26.083554
License: Public Domain

J-S04021-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
    KOURY TORRES                               :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :      No. 2592 EDA 2021

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 7, 2021
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0003469-2020

BEFORE:      MURRAY, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                                   FILED JUNE 29, 2023

        Appellant, Koury Torres, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered

in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial

convictions of two counts of possession of a controlled substance and one

count of possession of drug paraphernalia, and his bench trial conviction of

the summary offense of driving without a license.1 We affirm.

        The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this

case as follows:

           Beginning around the end of March 2020, Detective David
           M. Howells, III, of the Allentown Police Department was
           conducting a drug investigation involving [Appellant].
           Detective Howells was advised by the Lehigh County
           Department of Adult Probation and Parole that there was an
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1   35 P.S. §§ 780-113(16) and (32); 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1501(a).
J-S04021-23

       outstanding warrant for [Appellant], but that they would not
       detain him due to the circumstances surrounding the Covid-
       19 pandemic. However, as Covid restrictions began to
       change in the spring, Detective Howells was informed by the
       Lehigh County Department of Adult Probation and Parole
       that they would detain Appellant on his active warrant.

       On the evening of June 5, 2020, Detective Howells was
       conducting surveillance at the Super 8 Motel located at 1033
       Airport Road, Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. At
       that time, Detective Howells observed [Appellant] wearing
       a black fanny pack around his chest in the front parking lot
       of the motel going into and out of a black Jeep Liberty
       parked in the front lot. To confirm [Appellant’s] identity,
       Detective Howells drove through the parking lot and passed
       within a few feet of [Appellant].

       Detective Howells again confirmed that [Appellant] had an
       active Lehigh County Probation and Parole warrant, as well
       as verified that [Appellant] did not possess a valid driver’s
       license. When [Appellant] entered the black Jeep Liberty
       and drove away from the Super 8 Motel, Detective Howells
       radioed uniformed officers in marked vehicles and directed
       them to effectuate a traffic stop of [Appellant]. Detective
       Howells provided a description of the subject vehicle, as well
       as related to the other officers that [Appellant] had an
       outstanding warrant and did not possess a valid driver’s
       license. Detective Howells followed the Jeep Liberty until a
       marked unit located the vehicle and activated its lights and
       sirens. Detective Howells was not directly involved in the
       traffic stop of the vehicle.

       At approximately 6:30 P.M., Officer Zachary Wittman of the
       Allentown Police Department, in full uniform and driving a
       marked police vehicle, conducted the traffic stop of the
       subject Jeep Liberty in the area of Bradford Street and
       American       Parkway,    Allentown,      Lehigh     County,
       Pennsylvania. When Officer Wittman activated the police
       cruiser’s lights and sirens, the driver of the Jeep Liberty
       pulled off of the road towards the left, which resulted in the
       vehicle facing north in a southbound lane. The position of
       the vehicle was blocking a lane of travel, thereby impeding
       the flow of oncoming traffic on a highly travelled roadway
       and creating a traffic hazard.

                                   -2-
J-S04021-23

       Officer Wittman approached the driver side of the vehicle
       and made contact with the operator of the Jeep Liberty.
       Officer Wittman requested that the driver furnish him with
       an identification card. However, the driver indicated that he
       did not have any identification on his person. Consequently,
       Officer Wittman asked for the operator’s name. The name
       that was initially provided could not be confirmed through
       electronic records, and therefore Officer Wittman
       reapproached the vehicle and again asked the operator for
       his name. At this time, the driver provided his actual name,
       Koury Torres. When Officer Wittman reviewed [Appellant’s]
       name through his vehicle’s criminal information system,
       Officer Wittman confirmed that [Appellant] did not possess
       a valid driver’s license. Consequently, in light of the vehicle
       blocking traffic and being a hindrance during rush hour, as
       well as [Appellant’s] failure to possess a valid driver’s
       license, it was determined that the vehicle needed to be
       towed and impounded by A-1 Towing.

       While Officer Wittman was verifying [Appellant’s]
       information, Officer Jason Kesack of the Allentown Police
       Department arrived on scene for assistance. Officer Kesack
       was aware of Detective Howell’s drug investigation involving
       [Appellant], as well as the fact that he had an outstanding
       warrant and did not possess a valid driver’s license as a
       result of the radio communications that had been exchanged
       among him, Officer Wittman, and Detective Howells. When
       Officer Kesack approached the Jeep Liberty, he observed
       open containers in the center console of the vehicle and
       smelled the odor of alcohol emanating from them.
       Therefore, Officer Kesack asked [Appellant] to exit the
       vehicle. Officer Kesack handcuffed [Appellant] and placed
       [Appellant] into custody.

       Officer Kesack conducted an inventory search of the vehicle
       pursuant to the Allentown Police Department Inventory
       Search Policy. The purpose of the inventory search is to list
       all valuable items in an effort to secure and safeguard them
       for the owner.        According to the Allentown Police
       Department Inventory Search Policy, the “inventory
       includes any containers in the vehicle, the contents of which
       are not visible from the outside.”

                                    -3-
J-S04021-23

          As a result of the inventory search of the vehicle, Officer
          Kesack located two (2) black fanny bags in the back seat of
          the vehicle. One of the bags contained two (2) knotted bags
          with powder substances therein, as well as a container that
          held suspected crack cocaine. Also within the same black
          fanny bag were two (2) glass smoking pipes and a Brillo
          pad. The other black fanny bag contained a lock box which
          held a digital scale with white residue on it, United States
          currency, and a scooper.

          The suspected drugs were sent to the Pennsylvania State
          Police Bureau of Forensic Services for analysis. An analysis
          revealed that the drugs located in the Jeep Liberty were 2.21
          grams of a heroin/fentanyl mixture, as well as 2.1 grams of
          cocaine.

          When Detective Howells learned that drugs were located
          within the vehicle, he returned to the scene. [Appellant]
          was transported to the headquarters of the Allentown Police
          Department where Detective Howells provided him with his
          Miranda[2] warnings prior to interviewing him with
          Detective Joseph Graves. In particular, Detective Howells
          read the Miranda warnings to [Appellant] from the
          Allentown Police Department Rights Warning and Waiver
          Form. [Appellant] signed the Form at 8:33 P.M. and agreed
          to speak with Detective Howells and Detective Graves.
          During the interview, [Appellant] admitted that he both
          used and sold the drugs located in the vehicle. He also
          stated that he “cooked up” his own crack cocaine.
          [Appellant] explained that “cooked up” meant that he would
          cut the cocaine with another substance in order to maximize
          his profits.

(Trial Court Opinion, 5/10/21, at 2-6) (paragraph numbering and record

citation omitted).

        The Commonwealth charged Appellant with possession with intent to

deliver a controlled substance (“PWID”), possession of a controlled substance,

____________________________________________

2   Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

                                           -4-
J-S04021-23

possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving without a license.      Appellant

filed an omnibus pretrial motion on March 1, 2021, which he amended on

March 2, 2021, seeking suppression of the items found during the inventory

search and dismissal of the charge of possession with intent to deliver. The

court conducted a hearing on the pretrial motion on April 6, 2021, during

which the Commonwealth introduced the testimony of Detective Howells,

Officer Wittman, and Officer Kesack. On May 10, 2021, the court issued an

order denying relief.

      After the conclusion of trial on August 18, 2021, the jury found Appellant

guilty of two counts of possession of a controlled substance and one count of

possession of drug paraphernalia. The jury acquitted Appellant of PWID. The

court found Appellant guilty of the summary offense of driving without a

license. On October 7, 2021, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate

term of 22 months to 4 years of incarceration. Appellant filed a timely post

sentence motion on October 13, 2021, which the court denied on November

15, 2021. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on December 13, 2021,

and, in compliance with the court’s order, filed his concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal.

      Appellant raises one issue on appeal:

         Whether the police, in stopping [Appellant’s] vehicle,
         confronting    [Appellant],   and    eventually    detaining
         [Appellant] had a lawful basis for seizing the drug
         paraphernalia and controlled substances found during an
         alleged inventory search of [Appellant’s] vehicle?

                                     -5-
J-S04021-23

(Appellant’s Brief at 5).

      “Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court’s denial

of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the factual findings

are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from

those facts are correct.”   Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14, 26

(Pa.Super. 2008) (en banc) (internal citations omitted).

         [W]e may 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 court erred in reaching its legal
         conclusions based upon the facts.

Id. at 27. If appellate review of the suppression court’s decision “turns on

allegations of legal error,” then the trial court’s legal conclusions are

nonbinding on appeal and subject to plenary review.        Commonwealth v.

Jones, 121 A.3d 524, 526-27 (Pa.Super. 2015), appeal denied, 635 Pa. 750,

135 A.3d 584 (2016) (citation omitted).

      Appellant argues the officers were prohibited from conducting a

warrantless search of his vehicle without first articulating sufficient probable

cause and exigent circumstances to justify the search. Specifically, Appellant

claims that police conducted the search with an improper motive—namely,

investigating criminal activity—which cannot form the basis for an inventory

search. Appellant insists the search went far beyond that which was necessary

for a reasonable inventory search when the police opened fanny packs and a

                                      -6-
J-S04021-23

sealed lockbox. Appellant concludes that the “inventory search exception” to

the warrant requirement does not apply under these facts, and the trial court

should have granted his motion to suppress. We disagree.

      “Both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and

Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantee individuals

freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.”         Commonwealth v.

Heidelberg, 267 A.3d 492, 502 (Pa.Super. 2021) (en banc), appeal denied,

___ Pa. ___, 279 A.3d 38 (2022) (citation omitted). “A warrantless search or

seizure of evidence is…presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth

Amendment and Article I, § 8, subject to a few specifically established, well-

delineated exceptions.”   Commonwealth v. Luczki, 212 A.3d 530, 546

(Pa.Super. 2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).        These

exceptions include “the consent exception, the plain view exception, the

inventory search exception, the exigent circumstances exception, the

automobile exception, ... the stop and frisk exception, and the search incident

to arrest exception.”     Commonwealth v. Smith, 285 A.3d 328, 332

(Pa.Super. 2022) (citation omitted).

      This Court has explained:

         A warrantless inventory search of an automobile is different
         from a warrantless investigatory search of the same. An
         inventory search of an automobile is permitted where: (1)
         the police have lawfully impounded the automobile; and (2)
         the police have acted in accordance with a reasonable,
         standard policy of routinely securing and inventorying the
         contents of the impounded vehicle.          A warrantless
         investigatory search of an automobile requires both a

                                       -7-
J-S04021-23

          showing of probable           cause    to   search    and   exigent
          circumstances.

          In determining whether a proper inventory search has
          occurred, the first inquiry is whether the police have lawfully
          impounded the automobile, i.e., have lawful custody of the
          automobile. The authority of the police to impound vehicles
          derives from the police’s reasonable community care-taking
          functions. Such functions include removing disabled or
          damaged vehicles from the highway, impounding
          automobiles which violate parking ordinances...and
          protecting the community’s safety.

          The second inquiry is whether the police have conducted a
          reasonable inventory search.      An inventory search is
          reasonable if it is conducted pursuant to reasonable
          standard police procedures and in good faith and not for the
          sole purpose of investigation.

Commonwealth v. Henley, 909 A.2d 352, 359 (Pa.Super. 2006) (en banc)

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).3

       Instantly, during a drug investigation, Detective Howells observed

Appellant driving a black Jeep. Detective Howells knew that Appellant did not

have a valid driver’s license and had an active arrest warrant for alleged

probation violations. Based on this information, Detective Howells requested

that a marked police car initiate a traffic stop.              When Officer Whitman

activated his lights and sirens to conduct the stop, Appellant drove his vehicle

____________________________________________

3 We note that our Supreme Court has reaffirmed that “the Pennsylvania
Constitution requires both a showing of probable cause and exigent
circumstances to justify a warrantless search of an automobile.”
Commonwealth v. Alexander, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 243 A.3d 177, 181 (2020).
Nevertheless, Alexander did not eliminate the inventory search exception to
the warrant requirement as applied to automobiles. See Commonwealth v.
Thompson, 289 A.3d 1104, 1109-10 (Pa.Super. 2023).

                                           -8-
J-S04021-23

into the opposing lane of traffic and stopped his vehicle facing the wrong

direction in a manner partially blocking traffic.   After the arresting officer

confirmed that Appellant did not possess a valid driver’s license, and because

the vehicle was hindering traffic during rush hour, Officer Whitman determined

that the vehicle needed to be towed and impounded.         Prior to towing the

vehicle, Officer Kesack conducted an inventory search pursuant to the

Allentown Police Department Inventory Search Policy, which explains that “the

inventory includes any containers in the vehicle, the contents of which are not

visible from the outside.” (Trial Court Opinion, 5/10/21, at 8).

       Under these circumstances, the police lawfully impounded the vehicle

because Appellant did not have a valid driver’s license and because his vehicle

was hindering traffic. See Thompson, supra at 1110 (holding that police

lawfully impounded vehicle that was impeding flow of traffic). See also 75

Pa.C.S.A. § 6309.2(a)(1) (providing that if individual operates motor vehicle

without license “the law enforcement officer shall immobilize the vehicle

or…direct that the vehicle be towed”).4

       Further, the Allentown Police Department Inventory Search Policy

____________________________________________

4 Although Appellant suggests that it was unreasonable for the officers to
impound the vehicle without first providing him the opportunity to find an
alternative driver, Appellant fails to develop this argument with citations to
any supporting authority. Thus, we deem this challenge waived on appeal.
See Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d 869 (Pa.Super. 2006) (explaining
that this Court will not become counsel for appellant and will not consider
issues that are not fully developed in his brief).

                                           -9-
J-S04021-23

provides that every vehicle towed is subject to an inventory which includes

any containers where the contents are not visible from the outside. (See N.T.

Suppression Hearing, 4/6/21, at Com. Ex. C-1, Allentown Police Department

Vehicle Inventory Policy, ¶ 4.3.6).    Therefore, the inventory search of

Appellant’s jeep, which included the contents of several containers, complied

with the police department standard procedures. See id. Based upon the

foregoing, the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement applies

in this case, and the trial court properly denied Appellant’s suppression

motion. See Henley, supra. See also Williams, supra. Accordingly, we

affirm.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/29/2023

                                   - 10 -