Court Opinion

ID: 9958238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 16:09:08.310599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:06.730670
License: Public Domain

J-S08020-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                 :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                                 :
                v.                               :
                                                 :
                                                 :
    GUISEPPE BRUNO                               :
                                                 :
                       Appellant                 :     No. 1427 MDA 2023

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 2, 2023
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-06-CR-0003195-2022

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                        FILED: APRIL 8, 2024

       Guiseppe Bruno (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence1

imposed after the trial court convicted him of one count each of persons not

to possess firearms, possession of a firearm with altered manufacturer’s

number,     possession     of   a   controlled       substance,   possession   of   drug

paraphernalia, possession of a small amount of marijuana, and general

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1  Appellant purports to appeal from the September 11, 2023, sentencing
order. Notice of Appeal, 10/4/23, at 1. However, the trial court issued an
amended sentencing order on October 2, 2023. Where a trial court amends
a sentencing order during the period it maintains jurisdiction, the direct appeal
lies from the amended sentencing order. See Commonwealth v. Garzone,
993 A.2d 1245, 1254 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2010).
J-S08020-24

lighting requirements.2       Appellant challenges the denial of his suppression

motion. We affirm.

       The trial court summarized the facts as follows:

             On April 8, 2022, Officer [Nathan] Daniels was operating a
       marked patrol vehicle when he observed a black Hyundai Elantra
       (“Hyundai”) traveling in the 3800 Block of Perkiomen Avenue,
       Berks County, Pennsylvania. The vehicle’s passenger side brake
       light was not functioning. Officer Daniels initiated a traffic stop
       and approached the Hyundai on the passenger side. [Appellant]
       was the vehicle’s operator.         [A female occupied the front
       passenger seat. Officer Daniels] asked [Appellant] for his driver’s
       license, the vehicle’s registration and insurance.

             While outside of the Hyundai, Officer Daniels noticed a Blunt
       Effects spray and a cut straw by the left foot of the front seat
       passenger. Officer Daniels was familiar with cut straws and knew
       that they were commonly used to ingest methamphetamine or
       some other narcotic. He also knew that Blunt Effects spray can
       enhance marijuana and is commonly found with marijuana.

             Officer Daniels saw a … rolling tray in the backseat of the
       vehicle. Officer Daniels was familiar with these trays as they are
       commonly used to roll marijuana cigarette “blunts.”

       ….

             Officer Daniels returned to his patrol vehicle. He ran
       [Appellant’s] information and learned that he had previous arrests
       for robbery and persons not to possess a firearm. Officer Daniels
       exited his patrol vehicle and asked [Appellant] to step out of the
       Hyundai. He told [Appellant] he would like to search the vehicle
       and asked for consent. [Appellant] refused. In response, Officer
       Daniels explained to [Appellant] that he would call a canine unit
       to the scene and apply for a search warrant if the canine alerted
       to the vehicle. Officer Daniels asked [Appellant] for consent to
       search a second time and was again denied consent.

____________________________________________

2 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6110.2(a); 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16),
(32), (31)(i); 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4303(b).

                                           -2-
J-S08020-24

     ….

           Officer Daniels requested that a canine come to the scene.
     Officer [Craig] Downs arrived on scene with his canine, Jax. … Jax
     went around the outside of [Appellant’s] vehicle. He alerted to
     the passenger side door. The windows on the vehicle were closed.
     Jax did not enter the vehicle at any time. After Jax alerted to the
     Hyundai, Officer Daniels informed [Appellant] that the vehicle
     would be impounded, and he would apply for a search warrant.

           A search warrant for the Hyundai was obtained on April 8,
     2022.    During the search of the vehicle, law enforcement
     discovered a firearm and other items of contraband.

Suppression Court Opinion, 3/1/23, at 1-3 (numbering and some paragraph

breaks omitted).

     On October 27, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a criminal information

charging Appellant with the above offenses.       On November 29, 2022,

Appellant filed a suppression motion, challenging the canine search of his

vehicle and alleging the search warrant obtained thereafter did not establish

probable cause for the search of his vehicle. Motion to Suppress, 11/29/22,

at 2-3. The trial court held a suppression hearing on January 12, 2023. On

March 1, 2023, it denied the motion.

     On September 11, 2023, following a bench trial, the trial court convicted

Appellant of all charges, and sentenced him to an aggregate 7½ to 20 years

in prison. On October 2, 2023, the trial court issued an amended sentencing

order. Appellant timely appealed. Both the trial court and Appellant have

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

                                    -3-
J-S08020-24

        The sole issue Appellant raises on appeal is “[w]hether the trial court

erred in denying [Appellant’s] pretrial suppression motion[.]” Appellant’s Brief

at 5.    Specifically, Appellant contends “the police [officer’s] observation of

suspected derivative contraband … in the vehicle did not support prolonging

Appellant’s detention to conduct a [canine] search of the exterior of the

vehicle.” Id. at 10. Although Appellant concedes the initial traffic stop was

lawful, he maintains “[p]olice did not have a reasonable suspicion that the

driver, Appellant, possessed contraband or was engaged in the commission of

crimes.”     Id.   Appellant further argues, “while police might have had

reasonable suspicion to detain the passenger, … police did not have a sufficient

basis to conduct a [canine] search of the car Appellant was driving.” Id. at

12.

        Our standard of review of the 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. We are bound by the suppression
        court’s factual findings so long as they are supported by the
        record; our standard of review on questions of law is de novo.
        Where, as here, the defendant is appealing the ruling of the
        suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the
        Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as
        remains uncontradicted. Our scope of review of suppression
        rulings includes only the suppression hearing record and excludes
        evidence elicited at trial.

Commonwealth v. McMahon, 280 A.3d 1069, 171 (Pa. Super. 2022)

(quoting Commonwealth v. Yandamuri, 159 A.3d 503, 516 (Pa. 2017)).

                                      -4-
J-S08020-24

       “The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I,

Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantee the right of the people

to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions from

unreasonable searches and seizures.” Commonwealth v. Rice, 304 A.3d

1255, 1260 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation omitted).

       Our Courts have long recognized interactions between law enforcement

and the public fall within three categories: mere encounters, investigative

detentions, and custodial detentions. Commonwealth v. Adams, 205 A.3d

1195, 1199-1200 (Pa. 2019). Presently at issue is whether Officer Daniels

was justified in extending the initial, lawful traffic stop into an investigative

detention to conduct a canine search of Appellant’s vehicle.3 An investigative

detention “constitutes a seizure of a person, and to be constitutionally valid

police must have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” Id.

at 1199 (citations omitted). “To assess reasonable suspicion, we consider the

totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the

investigative detention.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, ___ A.3d ___, 2024 PA

Super 36, 3 (Pa. Super. filed Mar. 4, 2024) (citation omitted).

              In determining whether police had reasonable suspicion to
       initiate an investigative detention, the fundamental inquiry is an
       objective one, namely, whether the facts available to police at the
____________________________________________

3 The trial court, the Commonwealth, and Appellant agree that 1) Officer
Daniels seized Appellant following the initial traffic stop, and 2) that seizure
required Officer Daniels to articulate a reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity. See Suppression Court Opinion, 3/1/23, at 5; Commonwealth’s Brief
at 9; Appellant’s Brief at 10.

                                           -5-
J-S08020-24

      moment of the intrusion warrant a person of reasonable caution
      in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.

            This Court has recognized reasonable suspicion exists only
      where the officer is able to 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.

            To demonstrate reasonable suspicion, the detaining officer
      must articulate something more than an inchoate and
      unparticularized suspicion or hunch. To determine whether
      reasonable suspicion exists, we examine the totality of the
      circumstances through the eyes of a trained officer and not an
      ordinary citizen.

Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 287 A.3d 1, 8-9 (Pa. Super.

2022)).

      We recently observed that “[a]n officer may prolong a traffic stop if,

before completing the purpose of the stop, the officer develops additional

suspicion. Further reasonable suspicion can support continued investigation,

including a canine sniff of the exterior of the vehicle.” Commonwealth v.

Garcia, ___A.3d ___, 2024 PA Super 33, 4 (Pa. Super. Filed Feb. 27, 2024)

(citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Gould, 187 A.3d 927, 939

n.12 (Pa. Super. 2018) (“Reasonable suspicion will support a warrantless

canine sniff of the exterior of a vehicle.” (citation omitted)). “[O]nce a canine

sniff of a vehicle’s exterior triggers a positive indication, reasonable suspicion

of contraband in the vehicle ripens into probable cause.” Commonwealth v.

Hernandez, 935 A.2d 1275, 1285 (Pa. 2007) (citation omitted).

      In denying Appellant’s suppression motion, the trial court found:

                                      -6-
J-S08020-24

       In this case, when Officer Daniels first approached the Hyundai,
       he noticed items inside of the vehicle that he recognized as drug
       paraphernalia. One of those items, a cut straw, was by the left
       foot of the front seat passenger. Officer Daniels recognized the
       cut straw as an instrument commonly used to ingest
       methamphetamine or other narcotics. The front seat passenger
       was also very alert and had marks on her face consistent [with]
       methamphetamine use. The additional items of paraphernalia,
       the Blunt Effects spray and … rolling tray, were known by Officer
       Daniels to be associated with marijuana use. Furthermore, in
       addition to observing items of drug paraphernalia in the Hyundai,
       Officer Daniels ran [Appellant’s] criminal history and learned that
       he had prior arrests for robbery and persons not to possess a
       firearm.4 Therefore, upon consideration of the totality of the
       circumstances, this [c]ourt [found] that the extension of the traffic
       stop was supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Suppression Court Opinion, 3/1/23, at 6-7 (footnote added).

       The trial court’s findings are supported by the record. Officer Daniels

had approximately five years of law enforcement experience, and attended

multiple training sessions related to narcotics investigations. N.T., 1/12/23,

at 6. Throughout his career, he encountered drug paraphernalia on numerous

occasions.     Id.    Upon his initial contact with Appellant, Officer Daniels

observed several items of drug paraphernalia in plain view. Id. at 9, 10, 12.

____________________________________________

4 While prior convictions do not alone give rise to reasonable suspicion, their

presence along with other relevant factors may be considered in a reasonable
suspicion analysis. See Commonwealth v. Randolph, 151 A.3d 170, 178
n.2 (Pa. Super. 2016) (concluding a prior drug trafficking conviction was
relevant where law enforcement articulated “other suspicious details”).
However, as Officer Daniels was conducting a “narcotics investigation,” N.T.,
1/12/23, at 18, Appellant’s prior convictions for robbery and persons not to
possess a firearm are of minimal relevance to our analysis.

                                           -7-
J-S08020-24

Officer Daniels testified Appellant’s passenger was “very aware,” and had

marks on her face consistent with methamphetamine use. Id. at 11.

       Moreover, the trial court correctly applied the law to the specific facts of

this case. Officer Daniels’ observation of instruments commonly associated

with illegal drug use, in addition to Appellant’s passenger’s indicia of narcotics

use, provided reasonable suspicion justifying a canine search.                See

Commonwealth v. Green, 298 A.3d 1158, 1164 (Pa. Super. 2023)

(reasonable suspicion established where officer observed, inter alia, “drug

paraphernalia in plain view strewn about the vehicle”); see also In Int. of

A.A., 195 A.3d 896, 904 (Pa. 2018) (behavior of defendant’s passenger

factored into reasonable suspicion analysis), overruled in part on other

grounds by Commonwealth v. Barr, 266 A.3d 25 (Pa. 2021) (“[T]he smell

of marijuana alone cannot create probable cause to justify a search under the

state and federal constitutions.”). Accordingly, Appellant’s claim that Officer

Daniels lacked reasonable suspicion to request a canine search lacks merit

and his claim merits no relief.5

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

5 Appellant does not challenge the legality of the search warrant issued after

the canine search that resulted in the discovery of incriminating evidence.

                                           -8-
J-S08020-24

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 04/08/2024

                           -9-