Court Opinion

ID: 9757320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:32:29.108908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:36.605167
License: Public Domain

TAMILIA, J.,
Dissenting:
¶ 11 dissent as I believe the suppression court erred in its conclusions of law.
¶ 2 As set forth by the majority, our standard of review when the Commonwealth appeals from a suppression Order, is to consider only the evidence from the defendant’s witnesses together with the evidence of the prosecution that, when read in the context of the entire record, remains uncontradicted. Commonwealth v. Kondash, 808 A.2d 943, 946 (Pa.Super.2002) (citation omitted). If the evidence supports the trial court’s factual findings, we are bound by such findings and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom áre in error. Id.
¶ 3 There can be no dispute that pursuant to 14 U.S.C. § 89, Law Enforcement, (a), officers of the United States Coast Guard
The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States. For such purposes, commissioned, warrant, and petty officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States, address inquiries to those on board, examine the ship’s documents and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel and use all necessary force to compel compliance.
Id. (emphasis supplied). Further, the trial court and countless other jurisdictions have recognized Coast Guard officers have plenary authority under Section 89 to stop and board vessels to conduct general safety and documentation inspections, without suspicion of criminal activity. See, Trial Court Opinion at 2; see also, e.g., United States v. Morales, 889 F.2d 1058 (11th Cir.1989), United States v. Jonas, 639 F.2d 200 (5th Cir.1981), United States v. Watson, 678 F.2d 765 (9th Cir.1982), cert denied, 459 U.S. 1038, 103 S.Ct. 451, 74 L.Ed.2d 605 (1982), United States v. Harper, 617 F.2d 35 (4th Cir.1980), cert denied, 449 U.S. 887, 101 S.Ct. 243, 66 L.Ed.2d 113 (1980), United States v. Hayes, 653 F.2d 8 (1st Cir.1981).
¶ 4 While it is clear from the record that a motivation of the officers in boarding the boat was to investigate the employee’s complaint, the United States Supreme Court has rejected repeatedly the argument that an ulterior motive might render invalid an otherwise valid warrantless boarding. See United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579, 584, n. 3, 103 S.Ct. 2573, 77 L.Ed.2d 22 (1983); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 812-813, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 136, 98 SIn re Recount of Ballots for November 4, 2003 General Election Candi*689dates for Office of Dist. Justice, Magisterial Dist. 18-3-02.Ct. 1717, 56 L.Ed.2d 168 (1978). As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a finding that officers could stop and board “unsuspect” vessels for inspection but not suspect vessels, would lead to an “incongruous result.” Villamonte-Marquez, at 584, 103 S.Ct. 2573 (citation omitted). Accordingly, I reject the trial court’s legal conclusions that the stop was not a valid one pursuant to 14 U.S.C. § 89(a), and therefore that appel-lee’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. I find, instead, the officers had statutory authority to conduct the stop and their ulterior motive did not invalidate it.
¶ 5 In determining the scope of Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the trial court considered four factors: (1) the text of the Pennsylvania Constitution provision; (2) the history of the provision; (3) related case-law from other states; and (4) policy considerations. Trial Court Opinion, at 7-11, see also Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374, 586 A.2d 887 (1991). In its analysis of the fourth factor, the court concluded that pursuant to the various provisions of 30 Pa.C.S.A. § 901 Powers and duties of waterways conservation officers and deputies, waterways officers need no level of suspicion to stop vessels for boat and boating regulations relating to Part III of the statute, but beyond that, must have probable cause in order to stop/board a vessel for other purposes. See, § 901(a)(5), (a)(10). The court concluded, therefore, that the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s legislative intent, as reflected by the statute, restricts executive branch power once the search goes beyond document and/or safety inspections. Trial Court Opinion at 10.
¶ 6 Section 901, however, defines the authority of “Water Conservation Officers,” which, as Sections 102, Definitions, and 304, Waterways patrolmen and employees, explain, are appointed by and whose compensation is determined by, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Officer Job-czyski is an officer of the United States Coast Guard and not of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. His authority, therefore, is not circumscribed by Section 901. Although Officer Jobczyski was accompanied by a Water Conservation Officer and Erie County detective, I do not believe this invalidated the stop. See Villamonte-Marquez, supra, at 584, 103 S.Ct. 2573 (finding an otherwise valid stop of a vessel by customs officers was not invalidated because the officers were accompanied by state policemen, and were following an informant’s tip that the vessel was thought to be carrying drugs).
¶ 7 For the above stated reasons, I would find the trial court erred in its conclusions of law and reverse its Order.