Court Opinion

ID: 9555992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 18:12:07.492627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:53.268094
License: Public Domain

J-A12016-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  ANGEL MORALES                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1456 EDA 2022

                Appeal from the Order Entered May 13, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): MC-51-CR-0021811-2019

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                            FILED AUGUST 15, 2023

       Appellant Angel Morales appeals from the judgment of sentence made

final by the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

which denied Appellant’s petition for writ of certiorari,1 following Appellant’s

conviction for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in the Philadelphia Municipal

Court. Appellant argues that the Court of Common Pleas (certiorari court)

erred in rejecting Appellant’s suppression claims and denying his petition for

writ of certiorari. We affirm.

       The certiorari court summarized the underlying facts of this case as

follows:

____________________________________________

1 The order filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas denying a petition

for writ of certiorari confirms the judgment of sentence for purposes of appeal.
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Stilo, 138 A.3d 33, 34 (Pa. Super. 2016).
J-A12016-23

     On August 16, 2019, Officer Edwards and his partner arrived at
     the location of the 4000 block of North 5th Street, in Philadelphia,
     in response to a call for a disturbance on the highway.        N.T.,
     11/6/19, at 6. When they arrived at this location, they observed
     several people on the street pointing in the direction of a vehicle
     traveling eastbound on Luzerne going towards 5th street being
     driven by [] Appellant and stating that he had assaulted them.
     Id. at 7.

     Officer Edwards and his partner observed the vehicle, driven by
     Appellant, pull into the Cousin’s supermarket parking lot at 5th
     and Luzerne. Id. at 7. They further observed [] Appellant drive
     approximately 150 feet into the parking lot, swerving, and almost
     hitting another car parked in the Cousin’s supermarket parking
     lot. Id. at 8. Officer Edwards then activated his lights and sirens
     while driving behind [] Appellant who did not immediately stop.
     Id. at 9. Officer Edwards approached the driver side of Appellant’s
     vehicle and observed [] Appellant holding onto the steering wheel
     looking straight ahead and not in the officer’s direction. Id. He
     further asked [] Appellant if he was okay twice, but Appellant did
     not respond. When the officer asked [] Appellant if he had been
     drinking he responded that he was a diabetic. The officer asked
     [A]ppellant to step out of the car and walk to the back of the
     vehicle. Id. He observed [] Appellant stumble with glary eyes in
     a stare-state like he did not know where he was. Id. at 10. []
     Appellant was speaking with a slow slurred speech and answering
     with delayed responses. Id. at 12. Based on the officer’s 10
     years of experience and having pulled over and arrested
     approximately 200 individuals for driving under the influence, he
     believed his observations of [] Appellant’s behavior was consistent
     with someone under the influence of some sort of a narcotic. Id.
     at 12-13.

                                *     *     *

     On August 16, 2019, [] Appellant was arrested and charged with
     driving under the influence of a controlled substance or
     metabolite, first offense under subsections 75 Pa.C.S. §
     3802(d)(1) and (d)(2), graded as a misdemeanor. Appellant filed
     a motion to suppress any physical evidence (blood drawn from
     Appellant contained 46 nano grams of Phencyclidine) or
     statements made to the officer on the grounds that the police
     lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to retain, stop,
     frisk, search, question, or arrest [] Appellant. On November 6,

                                    -2-
J-A12016-23

      2019, the Municipal Court denied Appellant’s motion to suppress
      finding Officer Edward’s testimony to be very credible and that the
      officer had reasonable suspicion to stop [] Appellant’s vehicle to
      investigate and probable cause to arrest [] Appellant for [DUI].
      Thereafter, the matter proceeded to a bench trial in Municipal
      Court. The Commonwealth incorporated all relevant non-hearsay
      testimony from the motion to suppress. Dr. Michael Coyer from
      Drug Scan testified to the findings of [] Appellant’s blood report.
      The blood report indicated [] Appellant had 46 nanograms of
      Phencyclidine [(PCP]) in his blood making him unfit to safely
      operate a motor vehicle. Appellant was found guilty of [DUI]
      under subsections 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802 (d)(1) and (d)(2). [On
      September 7, 2021,] Appellant was [] sentenced to 3 days to six
      months incarceration with immediate parole.

Certiorari Ct. Op., 8/23/22, at 3, 2 (unpaginated).

      On October 26, 2021, Appellant filed a petition for writ of certiorari with

the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Therein, Appellant challenged the

Municipal Court’s denial of his motion to suppress. On April 12, 2022, the

Municipal Court conducted a hearing to place its findings of fact and

conclusions of law on the record. Following a hearing on May 13, 2022, the

certiorari court denied Appellant’s petition.

      Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) statement.      The certiorari court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion

addressing Appellant’s claims.

      On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues for review:

      1. Did not the [Municipal Court] err in denying the motion to
         suppress where Appellant was stopped without reasonable
         suspicion?

      2. Even if this Court finds that the officer had reasonable suspicion
         to stop Appellant’s car, did not the [Municipal Court] err in
         denying the motion to suppress where Appellant was arrested
         without probable cause?

                                      -3-
J-A12016-23

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (formatting altered).

      Both of Appellant’s claims relate to the Municipal Court’s denial of his

motion to suppress. First, Appellant argues that Officer Edwards did not have

reasonable suspicion to stop Appellant’s vehicle. In support, Appellant claims

that “the two bases for the stop of Appellant’s vehicle were (1) an anonymous

and uncorroborated tip and (2) vague descriptions of Appellant’s driving within

a parking lot.” Id. at 12-13. Appellant argues that “[n]either justification,

standing alone or in the totality of the circumstances, was sufficient to

establish reasonable suspicion to stop Appellant’s car.” Id. at 13. Further,

Appellant contends that Officer Edwards’ observations “neither corroborated

the anonymous tip nor provided independent reasonable suspicion or probable

cause to support a traffic stop.” Id. at 18.

      Appellant also argues that, even if Officer Edwards had reasonable

suspicion to stop Appellant’s car, there was no probable cause for the arrest.

Id. at 21. Specifically, Appellant argues that he “stumbled a little bit getting

out of his car and his speech was slow” which was “consistent with diabetic

shock.” Id. Appellant asserts that “Officer Edwards never testified to the

opinion that Appellant was under the influence” and instead “stated that he

did not believe Appellant could operate a vehicle and that he was unsure what

explanation there was for his abnormal behavior.” Id. at 25. Appellant argues

that because the officer was “not sure of the reason for Appellant’s behavior

and knew that something was not right, further investigation was warranted

before proceeding to an arrest.” Id. at 27.

                                      -4-
J-A12016-23

      Initially, we note that when the Municipal Court in Philadelphia (1)

denies a motion to suppress, (2) finds the defendant guilty of a crime, and (3)

imposes sentence, the defendant has the right either to request a trial de novo

or to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Court of Common Pleas of

Philadelphia County. Pa.R.Crim.P. 1006(1)(a); Commonwealth v. Neal, 151

A.3d 1068, 1070 (Pa. Super. 2016).     If the defendant files a petition for writ

of certiorari and challenges the denial of a motion to suppress, “the Court of

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County sits as an appellate court and reviews

the record of the suppression hearing in the Municipal Court.” Neal, 151 A.3d

at 1070 (citations omitted).

      “Importantly, when performing this appellate review, the Court of

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County applies precisely the same standard that

the Superior Court applies in appeals from Common Pleas Court orders

denying motions to suppress.” Id. Specifically, this Court has explained:

      The Court of Common Pleas 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 Commonwealth prevailed before the
      suppression court, the Court of Common Pleas may consider only
      the evidence of the Commonwealth 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 suppression court’s
      factual findings are supported by the record, the Court of Common
      Pleas 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 the Court of Common Pleas, whose duty it is to
      determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the

                                     -5-
J-A12016-23

      facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the court below are subject
      to plenary review.

Id. at 1070-71 (citation omitted, some formatting altered).

      It is well settled that “Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and

the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution both protect the

people from unreasonable searches and seizures. Jurisprudence arising under

both charters has led to the development of three categories of interactions

between citizens and police.” Commonwealth v. Lyles, 97 A.3d 298, 302

(Pa. 2014) (citations omitted).

      The first of these is a “mere encounter” (or request for
      information) which need not be supported by any level of
      suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop or to respond.
      The second, an “investigative detention” must be supported by a
      reasonable suspicion; it subjects a suspect to a stop and a period
      of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to
      constitute the functional equivalent of an arrest. Finally, an arrest
      or “custodial detention” must be supported by probable cause.

Commonwealth v. Pakacki, 901 A.2d 983, 987 (Pa. 2006) (citations

omitted).

      [T]o establish grounds for reasonable suspicion, the officer must
      articulate specific observations which, in conjunction with
      reasonable inferences derived from those observations, led him
      reasonably to conclude, in light of his experience, that criminal
      activity was afoot and that the person he stopped was involved in
      that activity. The question of whether reasonable suspicion
      existed at the time [the officer conducted the stop] must be
      answered by examining the totality of the circumstances to
      determine whether the officer who initiated the stop had a
      particularized and objective basis for suspecting the individual
      stopped. Therefore, the fundamental inquiry of a reviewing court
      must be an objective one, namely, whether the facts available to
      the officer at the moment of the [stop] warrant a man of

                                      -6-
J-A12016-23

      reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was
      appropriate.

Commonwealth v. Basinger, 982 A.2d 121, 125 (Pa. Super. 2009) (internal

citations and quotation marks omitted; alterations in original).

      With respect to probable cause, this Court has explained:

      Probable cause exists where [a police] officer has knowledge of
      sufficient facts and circumstances to warrant a prudent person to
      believe that [a] driver has been driving under the influence of
      alcohol or a controlled substance. A police officer may utilize both
      his experience and personal observations to render an opinion as
      to whether a person is intoxicated. Probable cause justifying a
      warrantless arrest for DUI is determined by the “totality of the
      circumstances.”

Commonwealth v. Maguire, 175 A.3d 288, 294 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations

omitted and some formatting altered). Additionally, “probable cause does not

involve certainties, but rather the factual and practical considerations of

everyday    life   on   which   reasonable     and    prudent    persons      act.”

Commonwealth v. Angel, 946 A.2d 115, 118 (Pa. Super. 2008).

      Here, the certiorari court addressed the Municipal Court’s findings as

follows:

      In reviewing both the Municipal Court’s record from the
      suppression hearing and its findings of fact and conclusions of law,
      this court concluded that the factual findings are supported by the
      record and the legal conclusions drawn from those facts were
      correct. The Municipal Court found Officer Edwards extremely
      credible. N.T., 4/12/22, at 6. In its findings of fact, the Municipal
      Court found that Officer Edwards arrived for a disturbance on the
      highway on the 4000 block North 5th Street in Philadelphia.
      Several people were at the location on the street and pointed at
      the vehicle driven by [] Appellant traveling eastbound on Luzerne,
      saying [that A]ppellant had assaulted them or had assaulted
      someone. Id. at 3. Officer Edwards observed the vehicle pull

                                      -7-
J-A12016-23

      into a parking lot of Cousin’s supermarket located at 5th and
      Luzerne. He observed [] Appellant drive 150 feet into the lot
      swerving and almost hit a parked car in the lot. Id. at 4. At this
      point the officer activated his lights and sirens. The officer
      indicated he stopped the car to investigate. The Municipal Court
      further found that [Appellant] eventually stopped. When [Officer
      Edwards] approached the driver side of the vehicle, [] Appellant
      was holding the steering wheel looking straight ahead. The officer
      asked [] Appellant twice if he was okay and he did not respond.
      Id. The officer then asked if Appellant had been drinking and
      [Appellant] responded [that] he was a diabetic.

      The Municipal Court further found that Officer Edwards directed
      Appellant to step out of the vehicle and walk to the back of the
      patrol car. The officer observed [] Appellant stumble and stated
      that his eyes looked glary. Id. at 5. [Officer Edwards] described
      [Appellant’s] eyes as in a stare state like he did not know where
      he was. Officer Edwards stated something is not right. Id. The
      Court found that Officer Edwards observed [] Appellant’s slow
      speech, slow and delayed responses, and not answering the
      officer’s questions directly. Officer [Edwards] testified that he was
      a police officer for 10 years and had pulled over approximately
      200 people for [DUI], a number of which were for persons who
      were driving under the influence of drugs.         Id. at 5-6. The
      Municipal Court found that the opinion of the officer was that
      [Appellant] was not able to safely operate a vehicle on the date in
      question in his condition. Id. at 6. The Court additionally found
      that the officer indicated that he returned back to 5th and Luzerne
      to substantiate the basis of the call but no persons were at the
      location. Id.

      The Municipal Court further held in its conclusions of law that the
      police officer had reasonable suspicion to pull over the vehicle and
      probable cause to arrest [] Appellant for [DUI].          Id. The
      suppression court stated that the officer conveyed to the court a
      clear sense that he had observed similar behavior before of
      persons driving under the influence of drugs.

Certiorari Ct. Op. at 5-7 (unpaginated).

                                      -8-
J-A12016-23

       Following our review of the record, we find no error by the certiorari

court in rejecting Appellant’s suppression claims.           See Neal, 151 A.3d at

1070-71.

       First, as to the initial stop, we note that Officer Edwards first observed

Appellant’s vehicle after several individuals at the scene alleged that the driver

of the vehicle,2 later identified as Appellant, had committed an assault. See

N.T. Hr’g & Trial, 11/6/19, at 6-7.            Officer Edwards indicated that after he

and his partner saw Appellant pull into a supermarket parking lot, the vehicle

traveled approximately 150 feet, then swerved to avoid hitting a parked car.

Id. at 8-9. At that time, Officer Edwards indicated that he activated his lights

and stopped Appellant’s vehicle to investigate the assault allegations. Id. at

7, 9. Based on the totality of these circumstances, we agree with the certiorari

court that Officer Edwards had a particularized and objective basis for

suspecting that Appellant was engaged in criminal activity. See Basinger,

982 A.2d at 125.        Therefore, the certiorari court correctly concluded that

Officer Edwards had reasonable suspicion to stop Appellant’s vehicle. See id.

____________________________________________

2 We recognize that an uncorroborated anonymous tip is insufficient to provide

reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop of an individual’s vehicle. See
Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 750 A.2d 795 (Pa. 2000). In the instant case,
after police arrived at the scene to investigate the initial report of a highway
disturbance, they encountered several individuals who indicated that
Appellant’s vehicle that had been involved in an alleged assault. Although
these witnesses were never specifically identified, nor did they testify at trial,
we reject Appellant’s argument that the information conveyed by these
witnesses was the same as an “anonymous tip.”

                                           -9-
J-A12016-23

      With respect to the subsequent arrest, the record confirms that after

Officer Edwards stopped Appellant’s vehicle, the officer noted that Appellant

was staring straight ahead, had “glary” eyes, gave slurred and delayed

responses, appeared as though he “did not know where he was,” and stumbled

as he exited his vehicle and walked to the back of the officer’s car. N.T. Hr’g

& Trial, 11/6/19, at 9-10. Officer Edwards testified that he has been a police

officer for 10 years and has pulled over approximately 200 people for DUI,

some of whom were under the influence of drugs. Id. at 13. Officer Edwards

stated that he had “experience in dealing with people who are on some type

of narcotic and [Appellant’s behavior] was sort of the same thing” and stated

that he believed that Appellant was “not able to operate a vehicle on that day.”

Id. at 12, 13. Although no single factor amounts to probable cause, when

taken together, the totality of these circumstances support a finding of

probable cause to arrest. See Maguire, 175 A.3d at 294.

      Finally, we note that the Municipal Court concluded that Officer Edwards

was “extremely credible.” See N.T. Hr’g, 4/12/22, at 6. Therefore, to the

extent Appellant offers alternative reasons for his behavior during the traffic

stop, we decline to revisit the Municipal Court’s credibility determinations or

re-weigh the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.                 See

Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 130 A.3d 697, 711 (Pa. 2015) (reiterating

that, as an appellate court, we will not upset the credibility determinations of

a suppression court, “within whose sole province it is to pass on the credibility

of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony”).

                                     - 10 -
J-A12016-23

      For these reasons, Appellant is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, we

affirm.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/15/2023

                                   - 11 -