Court Opinion

ID: 9765263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:57:31.928469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:07.434062
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
KELLY, J.:
¶ 1 While I agree with the Majority’s conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction of simple assault and possession of a controlled substance, I respectfully disagree that the initial stop of Appellant as a “companion” was lawful. Thus, I also believe the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for resisting arrest, and I dissent as to this verdict.9
¶ 2 After witnessing a narcotics transaction at a separate location, police saw a suspect from that drug sale standing “in the company of’ Appellant at the corner of 12th and Fitzwater Streets.10 (N.T. Preliminary Hearing, 9/22/04, at 6). When police approached the corner, the suspect fled. (Id.). While one officer pursued the suspect, another approached Appellant and others who remained on the corner.11 Once the suspect departed, none of the men standing on the corner were implicated in any crime. An officer ordered Appellant to “turn and face the fence line” to be checked for weapons. (Id. at 12). After Appellant kicked a third officer who attempted to frisk him, he arrested Appellant for assault. In searching him, police discovered marijuana and crack cocaine on his person. As an officer led Appellant to the police car, he spat blood and saliva on the officer’s face and shirt.
¶ 8 Section 5104 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, which sets forth the crime of resisting arrest, requires first that the underlying arrest be lawful. 18 Pa.C.SA. § 5104; Commonwealth v. Biagini, 540 Pa. 22, 655 A.2d 492, 497 (1995); Commonwealth v. Maxon, 798 A.2d 761, 770 (Pa.Super.2002). The statute also requires that the resistance offered exposing police to a “substantial risk of bodily injury.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104; In the Interest of Woodford, 420 Pa.Super. 179, 616 A.2d 641, 648 (1992). To conduct a lawful Terry stop requires that police: 1) to have reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articula-ble facts, that criminal activity was afoot; and 2) reasonably to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous.12 See Commonwealth v. Graham, 454 Pa.Super. 169, *548685 A.2d 132, 135 (1996), rev’d on other grounds, 554 Pa. 472, 721 A.2d 1075 (1998) (citing Terry, supra). This Court has explicitly rejected the notion, first proposed in U.S. v. Berryhill, 445 F.2d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir.1971), that police may always lawfully conduct a Terry stop on the companion of a suspect in a crime. Graham, supra at 136; see also Commonwealth v. Shiflet, 543 Pa. 164, 670 A.2d 128, 131 n. 4 (1995) (noting other jurisdictions have found automatic companion rule unconstitutional). Rather, the Graham Court concluded that where a citizen is the companion of a suspect, “the first prong of the ‘stop and frisk’ test is a nullity,” but the officer must nonetheless have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the companion is armed and dangerous before conducting the search. Id. at 137. “Mere presence near a high crime area” is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion that a companion might be armed and dangerous. Commonwealth v. Kearney, 411 Pa.Super. 274, 601 A.2d 346, 348 (1992). However, presence in a high crime area may be viewed in light of the totality of the circumstances to justify a Terry stop. Commonwealth v. Cook, 558 Pa. 50, 735 A.2d 673, 677 (1999).
¶ 4 Instantly, the resisting-arrest charge could relate to either of two circumstances: first, the initial stop and frisk;13 and second, Appellant’s arrest for assault. The trial court does not state which detention Appellant was found guilty of resisting. However, when properly viewed as distinct events, the evidence of either incident is insufficient to satisfy the necessary elements of resisting arrest.
¶ 5 Although the majority summarily describes Appellant and the suspect in the narcotics transaction as “companions,” it offers no analysis explaining why the officers had reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was still afoot after the drug sale had been completed and the participants dispersed. (See Majority Opinion at 542).14 The majority also concludes that police had a reasonable belief that Appellant was armed and dangerous, citing the officer’s testimony that the location was a “cop fighting corner.” However, when reasonable suspicion of an armed suspect has been found, the facts have disclosed something specific about the defendant that justified the search. See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 565 Pa. 140, 771 A.2d 1261, 1269 (2001) (citing appellant fumbled with pocket even after police ordered him to stop), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 994, 122 S.Ct. 462, 151 L.Ed.2d 380 (2001); Shelly, supra (noting appellant lied to police about his identity and was “fidgety”); Graham, supra (indicating police noticed bulge in appellant’s pocket). Here, no such source *549of or basis for reasonable suspicion is provided.
¶ 6 Moreover, the Commonwealth presented no evidence that the suspect and Appellant had interacted with each other at all, much less that they had interacted in some way related to the prior drug sale. The officer merely testified that, before he approached, each was “in the company of’ the other, (N.T. Preliminary Hearing at 6), or, as the majority describes the suspect, “located ... with a group of other men.” (Majority Opinion at 541). In fact, when police approached Appellant, the suspect in the drug transaction was not present. The evidence established only that Appellant was standing on a “cop fighting corner” through which a suspect had fled. Thus, I do not believe the evidence established that the suspect and Appellant were “companions” at the time police conducted the stop and frisk.
¶ 7 Further, Appellant’s presence in this “high crime area” is insufficient by itself to justify the officer’s suspicion. See Kearney, supra. While the majority cites a history of “gun problems” on this corner, I note that neither officer testified to a belief either that the suspects in the narcotics transaction were armed, or that Appellant or anyone in his group was armed. In fact, before police attempted to frisk Appellant, the suspect had already fled the scene. The only evidence regarding Appellant specifically was that his arm was in a sling from a previous injury, which would indicate he presented less, not more, of a threat. None of the testimony described why Appellant’s behavior in particular warranted a reasonable belief that he was armed and dangerous. See Taylor, supra; Shelly, supra; Graham, supra. In effect, the majority’s interpretation of the facts would permit police to conduct a Terry stop any time a citizen happens to be present in a high crime area through which a suspect flees. Such a holding is inconsistent with this Court’s duty to balance police protection with the right to privacy. See Graham, supra. I would therefore find the evidence insufficient to show that police had a reasonable belief that Appellant was armed and dangerous. See id.
¶ 8 The question then becomes whether the incidents following Appellant’s arrest for assault support his resisting-arrest conviction. Although the arrest was lawful, thus satisfying the first prong of the statutory test, as already noted he may not be convicted of resisting that arrest unless the resistance created a “substantial risk of bodily injury” to the officer. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5104. The resistance must be such that substantial force is necessary to overcome it. Id.; Commonwealth v. Clark, 761 A.2d 190, 193 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 565 Pa. 636, 771 A.2d 1278 (2001). Flight alone, for example, does not establish substantial risk. See Woodford, supra at 644 (reversing conviction for resisting arrest when arrestee fled, but pursuing officer was responsible for creating danger that led to injury).
¶ 9 Since Appellant’s kick created the circumstance justifying his legitimate arrest for assault, the kick cannot also serve as evidence for a charge of resisting arrest for the same assault. Therefore, the only evidence of Appellant’s resisting the assault arrest is his spitting on the arresting officer; however, this alone is not sufficient to create a substantial risk of bodily injury.15 See Clark, supra (finding substantial force necessary where arrestee “assumed a fighting stance” and fled when sprayed with pepper spray, requiring pursuing officer to “chase him down traffic *550lanes”). Appellant had already been placed in handcuffs, with his arm in a sling, and the evidence does not show additional resistance such as would create the requisite risk. Compare with Commonwealth v. Schwenk, 777 A.2d 1149, 1154-55 (Pa.Super.2001) (finding substantial risk of injury where arrestee maintained “continuous assault” on police, including resisting handcuffs), appeal denied, 567 Pa. 740, 788 A.2d 375 (2001). Accordingly, Appellant’s resisting-arrest conviction is unsupported by sufficient evidence.
¶ 10 I note that in Biagini, supra, our Supreme Court has upheld a conviction for assault while reversing a conviction for resisting arrest when the arrest was found to be unlawful. Biagini involved two appeals: in the first, when police attempted to arrest the appellant for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct, he scuffled with and punched an officer in the mouth; in the second, police approached two men who fled together, and an officer’s hand was cut during an ensuing struggle. Id. at 494-96. In each instance our Supreme Court found that police lacked the necessary justification for making an arrest, and thus reversed the appellants’ conviction for resisting arrest. Id. at 497. However, the Court upheld each appellant’s conviction for assault, finding that “[pjhysical resistance to a police officer is not only counterproductive to the orderly resolution of controversy, but it is also specifically prohibited by statute.” Id.; see also 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 505(b)(1)® (proscribing use of force to resist arrest, even when arrest is unlawful).
¶ 11 Because the arrest for assault here was lawful, I agree that the drugs seized during the subsequent search were admissible at trial and sufficient to convict Appellant for possession. See Commonwealth v. Ingram, 814 A.2d 264, 272 (Pa.Super.2002) (finding that for any lawful arrest, police may search arrestee and any evidence seized during search may be admitted at later proceedings), appeal denied, 573 Pa. 671, 821 A.2d 586 (2003). I therefore join with my colleagues in affirming Appellant’s convictions for simple assault and possession of narcotics. However, for the foregoing reasons, I believe the initial Terry stop was unlawful, and would reverse Appellant’s conviction for resisting arrest.

. It should be noted that no sentence was imposed either for Appellant’s conviction of resisting arrest or for his conviction of possessing a controlled substance.

. Police had already arrested the other participant in the drug sale.

. Police testified that they witnessed the drug transaction at approximately 3 p.m., and that they arrested Appellant very shortly thereafter. (N.T. Preliminary Hearing at 4-5, 11). However, the Information indicates that Appellant was not approached by officers until 9 p.m. If in fact six hours elapsed between the drug transaction and Appellant’s arrest, any argument that "companionship” between Appellant and the suspect gave rise to reasonable suspicion becomes untenable.

. The majority opinion relies for support on a holding of this Court, which did not find "the minimal intrusion of a safety-oriented frisk [] unwarranted." (Majority Opinion at 545) (quoting In the Interest of N.L., 739 A.2d 564, 569 (Pa.Super.1999), appeal denied, 562 Pa. 672, 753 A.2d 819 (2000)). However, our Supreme Court has recognized that a "stop and frisk” is not a de minimis invasion of an individual's privacy:
[I]t is simply fantastic to urge that [a frisk] performed in public while the citizen is helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a petty indignity. It is a serious intrusion on the sanctity of the person which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly.
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 548 Pa. 484, 698 A.2d 571, 573 (1997) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, *548392 U.S. 1, 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)).

. Since Section 5104 proscribes preventing an officer from "effecting a lawful arrest or discharging any other duty,” it is immaterial for purposes of this statute that the initial Terry stop in this case was not technically an arrest. See Biagini, supra at 497 (finding that officer who lacked lawful basis for stop and frisk also failed to satisfy lawful arrest requirement).

. Although no case in Pennsylvania has specifically defined "companion,” it is helpful to review prior applications of our version of the companion rule. In N.L., the primary case relied upon by the majority, the suspect and his companion were seated together on a stoop. N.L., supra at 566. In Graham, the defendant was seen on a porch with the suspect, and later seen walking with the suspect. Graham, supra at 134. In Commonwealth v. Shelly, 703 A.2d 499 (Pa.Super.1997), appeal denied, 555 Pa. 743, 725 A.2d 1220 (1998), the suspect and the appellant were riding together in a car. Id. at 502. In all these cases, the evidence showed either interaction between the suspect and the appellant, or the suspect and the appellant at a confined location. See N.L., supra; Graham, supra; Shelly, supra.

. The Crimes Code has defined spitting as an assault in one very limited circumstance, that is, when an incarcerated prisoner who knows or has reason to know he is infected with a communicable disease spits on a corrections officer. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2703.