Com. v. Echevavia, H., Com. v. Echevavia, H. No. 3001 EDA 2016

On Nov. 23, 2015, two uniformed Philadelphia officers in a "stealth-marked" vehicle drove the wrong way on a one-way street in an area known for open-air drug sales.
From ~40–60 feet away, an officer observed what he believed was a hand-to-hand drug transaction.
The officers stopped the vehicle adjacent to appellant Harry Echevavia and a purchaser, exited the car, and the appellant dropped 14 small blue packets onto the roadway.
The officer recovered the packets, arrested Echevavia, and he was charged with possession and possession with intent to deliver.
Echevavia moved to suppress, arguing the officers’ approach constituted an investigative detention without reasonable suspicion and his discarding of the packets was coerced abandonment; the trial court denied suppression and convicted him after a nonjury trial.
On appeal the Superior Court affirmed, holding the encounter was a mere encounter (not a seizure) and the abandonment was voluntary, supplying probable cause for arrest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Echevavia)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether officers’ approach and exiting their vehicle amounted to an investigative detention	Officers’ driving the wrong way, stopping adjacent in uniformed presence amounted to a show of authority that seized him, so abandonment was coerced	The approach was not sufficiently coercive (no lights/sirens, no commands, no obstruction); it was a mere encounter	Mere encounter; abandonment voluntary; suppression denied
Whether evidence abandoned during an unlawful detention must be suppressed	If a seizure occurred without reasonable suspicion, the discarded contraband should be suppressed under Matos/Astillero	Abandonment occurred before any seizure; therefore recovery valid and supplied probable cause	Recovery admissible; arrest supported by recovered contraband

Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Commonwealth v. Astillero, 39 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2012) (discouraging admission of evidence abandoned during unsupported investigative detentions)
Commonwealth v. Guzman, 44 A.3d 688 (Pa. Super. 2012) (test for whether police action amounts to a seizure)
Commonwealth v. Guess, 53 A.3d 895 (Pa. Super. 2012) (mere encounter where officer approached without commands or physical impediment)
Commonwealth v. Byrd, 987 A.2d 786 (Pa. Super. 2009) (police caravan driving wrong way did not necessarily constitute seizure; abandonment held voluntary)
Commonwealth v. Riley, 715 A.2d 1131 (Pa. Super. 1998) (approach in unmarked vehicle without seizure where movement not obstructed)
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009) (experienced officer’s observations of a currency-for-small-object exchange can supply probable cause to arrest)
Commonwealth v. Matos, 672 A.2d 769 (Pa. 1996) (evidence discarded during an unsupported detention generally should be suppressed)