Court Opinion

ID: 9407342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 16:10:02.310431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:37.072234
License: Public Domain

J-A07027-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    BILLY DUNBAR                               :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 413 EDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 1, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-51-CR-0006369-2018

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                             FILED JULY 06, 2023

        Billy Dunbar appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following

his convictions for persons not to possess a firearm, carrying a firearm without

a license, and carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia.1 Dunbar challenges

the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

        We glean the following facts from the hearing on the motion to suppress.

On June 26, 2018, around 9:00 p.m., Sergeant Matthew Notiff of the

Philadelphia Police Department was on assigned patrol on Frankford Avenue,

in Philadelphia, along with Officers Manes and Halloway. N.T., 6/17/21, at 6.

Sergeant Notiff testified that Frankford Avenue is a high-crime area and his

team specialized in shootings, robberies, and aggravated assaults. Id. He

stated that he received a flash report over the police radio that there was a

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105, 6106, and 6108, respectively.
J-A07027-23

shooting at 5140 Leaper Street and that “a known doer, Billy Dunbar, [was]

wanted for an [aggravated] assault with a handgun.” Id. at 6, 12. Sergeant

Notiff testified that the officers’ flash report was a “really detailed, good

verified flash” and identified Dunbar by name. Id. at 6, 16. It also stated that

he was a black male wearing a white button-up shirt, carrying a duffle bag

over his shoulder with a handgun inside, and was last seen in the area of

Brian’s Sports Bar on Frankford Avenue, which is three blocks away from 5140

Leaper Street. Id. at 6-7, 10-11, 16. Sergeant Notiff further testified that his

team had “a picture of Mr. Dunbar, a physical description, and his face that

was pulled up on the mobile data terminal, so we knew what his facial features

looked like.” Id. at 8.

      Sergeant Notiff and Officers Manes and Halloway went to Brian’s Sports

Bar and observed Dunbar seated at the bar. Id. at 7. There were at least five

other patrons at the bar. Id. at 12-13. Sergeant Notiff asked Dunbar his name

at least twice, but he did not respond. Id. at 7, 18. Dunbar finally said his

name was “William.” Id. Sergeant Notiff stated that Dunbar matched the exact

description of the person on the flash report that was sent out over the police

radio. Id. at 7, 14. He observed that Dunbar was carrying a duffle bag “around

his chest, draped over his shoulder.” Id. at 7-8. Sergeant Notiff testified that

the duffle bag was in the front region of Dunbar’s body near his chest and was

“[i]n his immediate area of control.” Id. at 15. The officers then detained

Dunbar and “took the duffle bag for safety[.]” Id. at 8. Sergeant Notiff stated

that after he took the duffle bag, he immediately felt something weighing it

                                     -2-
J-A07027-23

down, and based on his experience as a police officer, he could tell a firearm

was inside the bag. Id. at 8, 15-16, 19. He said that the heaviness felt like

when he would transport his own handgun in a duffle bag. Id. at 8, 16-17.

Sergeant Notiff testified that based off the verified information in the flash

report that Dunbar was carrying a handgun in a duffle bag, he secured the

weapon. Id. at 17. Sergeant Notiff opened the bag and recovered a loaded

semi-automatic handgun with an extended magazine in it, as well as an

additional magazine. Id. at 9-10.

      The trial court denied Dunbar’s motion to suppress. Dunbar proceeded

to a bench trial, and the court found him guilty of the above-referenced

offenses. The court sentenced him to five to ten years of incarceration and a

consecutive seven-year term of probation. This appeal followed.

      Dunbar raises the following issue:

      Did not the trial court err in denying the motion to suppress
      evidence where an officer, without a warrant or exigent
      circumstances, seized a backpack from [Dunbar’s] person, opened
      and viewed the contents of that backpack, and then further
      searched the backpack, retrieving from that backpack a handgun
      and gun clips?

Dunbar’s Br. at 3.

      Dunbar argues the court erred in denying his motion to suppress

because the warrantless search of his duffle bag was illegal. Id. at 14. He

contends that at the time of the search of the bag, he was under the custody

and control of the police officers and the bag was beyond his immediate reach.

Id. at 21. Dunbar argues he had complied with the officers’ directives, offered

                                     -3-
J-A07027-23

no resistance, and made no moves towards the bag when Sergeant Notiff

stepped away and looked inside of it. Id. at 13, 22. He maintains he had no

opportunity to access the bag once it was removed from his shoulder. Id. at

22. According to Dunbar, “even if the police possessed probable cause to

arrest [him] for firearms violations and assault, and even if the police had

probable cause to believe that the bag contained a firearm, no exigent

circumstances existed to justify the immediate search of the bag without first

obtaining a warrant.” Id. at 13.

      We review a trial court’s denial of a suppression motion to determine

“whether the suppression court’s factual findings are supported by the record

and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct.”

Commonwealth v. Mackey, 177 A.3d 221, 226 (Pa.Super. 2017) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010)). “Where the

suppression court’s factual findings are supported by the record, we are bound

by these findings and may reverse only if the court’s legal conclusions are

erroneous.” Id. (quoting Jones, 988 A.2d at 654). Our scope of review

includes only the suppression hearing record. Id. We view the record in the

light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the prevailing party. See

Commonwealth v. Mathis, 173 A.3d 699, 706 (Pa. 2017).

      The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1,

Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protect against unreasonable

searches and seizures. “A search conducted without a warrant is deemed to

be unreasonable and therefore constitutionally impermissible, unless an

                                    -4-
J-A07027-23

established exception applies.” Commonwealth v. Romero, 183 A.3d 364,

396 (Pa. 2018) (citation omitted).

      One such exception is the search incident to an arrest. Commonwealth

v. Simonson, 148 A.3d 792, 797 (Pa.Super. 2016). “The search incident to

arrest exception allows arresting officers, in order to prevent the arrestee from

obtaining a weapon or destroying evidence, to search both the person arrested

and the area within his immediate control.” Id. at 799 (citation and brackets

omitted). The scope of such a search includes containers and clothing that are

in the arrestee’s possession at the time of his arrest. See Commonwealth v.

Guzman, 612 A.2d 524, 526-27 (Pa.Super. 1992), abrogated on other

grounds, Commonwealth v. Bell, 645 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1994) (finding that

satchel carried by arrestee at time of arrest was lawfully searched incident to

the arrest); Commonwealth v. Trenge, 451 A.2d 701, 710 (Pa.Super. 1982)

(holding police lawfully searched shoulder bag that was on arrestee when he

was arrested). Additionally, a warrantless search incident to an arrest must

be “substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and [is] confined to the

immediate vicinity of the arrest.” Commonwealth v. Wright, 742 A.2d 661,

665 (Pa. 1999) (quoting Shipley v. California, 395 U.S. 818, 819 (1969)).

      Here, Dunbar does not argue that the police lacked probable cause to

arrest him. Rather, he contends that the search of his bag was unlawful

because he could not exercise control over the bag once it was removed from

him. As previously noted, a search incident to an arrest includes the search of

the person and the immediate area in which he was detained, as well as

                                      -5-
J-A07027-23

clothing and containers in his possession at the time of arrest. The record

indicates that Dunbar was carrying the duffle bag over his shoulder at the time

the police had probable cause to arrest him. Further, the search of the bag

was made substantially contemporaneously with Dunbar’s arrest. See

Wright, 742 A.2d at 665. Since probable cause existed to arrest Dunbar, and

Dunbar’s person was searched incident to a legal arrest, the evidence obtained

from the search of his bag was properly admitted.2

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 7/6/2023

____________________________________________

2 It is irrelevant whether the officers formally announced they were arresting
Dunbar before conducting their search. “[A] search conducted immediately
prior to an arrest is as valid as a search conducted subsequent and incident
to the arrest provided the officer had probable cause to arrest prior to the
search as long as the contraband discovered in the search is not used as
justification or probable cause for the arrest.” Trenge, 451 A.2d at 710, n.8.

                                           -6-