Com. v. Bumbarger, D.
2020 Pa. Super. 65
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2020Background
- On April 1, 2018 Trooper Murarik observed a white Chevy Impala he associated with Appellant, ran the plate through NCIC which returned an active Colorado arrest warrant marked "full extradition," and followed and stopped the vehicle.
- Trooper Murarik visually identified the driver as Appellant (based on prior familiarity and lighting), approached and arrested him.
- The passenger, Roberta Sheaffer, appeared "zoned out" and was asked to exit the vehicle; as she exited Murarik observed two unsecured syringes under the passenger seat in plain view.
- Based on the syringes and Sheaffer’s apparent intoxication and known drug history, Murarik conducted a probable-cause search and found methamphetamine bags, marijuana, a Colt .45 on the rear seat, and a loaded 9mm under the driver’s seat; Sheaffer said the guns belonged to Appellant.
- The trial court denied Appellant’s suppression motion; following a stipulated-fact nonjury trial Appellant was convicted of PWID and Persons Not to Possess a Firearm, sentenced to 2–4 years, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the stop based on an out-of-state warrant | The Colorado warrant was not a valid extradition warrant and thus could not justify an out-of-state stop/arrest | NCIC report showing an active warrant is sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause to stop and arrest | Stop lawful — NCIC notification of an active warrant gave probable cause |
| Whether trooper had sufficient basis to target/identify the driver | Murarik only assumed the driver was Appellant and assumed the warrant was valid | Murarik knew Appellant and his vehicle, registration matched Appellant, lighting allowed visual ID, and NCIC confirmed active warrant | Trooper had requisite suspicion and probable cause to stop and arrest Appellant |
| Continued detention of passenger after driver’s arrest | Once Appellant was removed the stop’s purpose ended; further detention/ordering passenger out was unlawful | Officers may order occupants out of a lawfully stopped car without independent reasonable suspicion; officer knew Sheaffer and lawfully approached her | Detention and order to exit were lawful |
| Syringes not inherently incriminating (could be medical) | Syringes could be legitimate medical devices and thus did not supply probable cause to search | Hypodermic syringes are statutorily included as drug paraphernalia; totality (location, unsecured, proximity to apparent drug user, officer training) supported illicit use | Syringes were sufficiently incriminating under the totality of circumstances to supply probable cause |
| Plain-view vantage point for seeing syringes | Trooper could not lawfully view the syringes from a lawful vantage point; plain view does not apply | Trooper lawfully had Sheaffer exit the vehicle and observed the syringes plainly without moving items | Plain view satisfied — trooper viewed syringes from a lawful vantage and could rely on them to search |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Cotton, 740 A.2d 258 (Pa. Super. 1999) (NCIC reports are sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977) (officers may order vehicle occupants to exit a lawfully stopped car)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 654 A.2d 1096 (Pa. Super. 1995) (police may have occupants alight from a lawfully stopped vehicle without separate suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Green, 168 A.3d 180 (Pa. Super. 2017) (automobile searches and probable-cause analysis under totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. McCullum, 602 A.2d 313 (Pa. 1992) (adoption of plain-view doctrine)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1971) (plain-view doctrine context)
- Commonwealth v. Luczki, 212 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. 2019) (three-prong plain-view test and considering officer training/totality when determining incriminating nature)