Com. v. Fuller, T.
484 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- On April 1, 2016, Norristown police officer Fritchman observed two men assaulting an older man; he broadcast a description (short Black male with a large beard) and the direction they ran.
- Approximately one to two minutes later Officer Robinson, responding to the radio call, found a parked PT Cruiser in the area with three occupants: driver (white female), front-seat passenger (older Black male), and a back-seat passenger matching the beard description (Fuller).
- Robinson shone his headlights into the car, observed Fuller lean forward and reach toward the floor as if concealing something, and believed Fuller matched the assault suspect and might have hidden a weapon or contraband.
- Fuller exited the vehicle and began walking away; Robinson drew his weapon, ordered him down, Fuller was handcuffed, and officers conducted a protective sweep of the back-seat area where they found bags containing crack cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and paraphernalia.
- Fuller moved to suppress the seized evidence arguing the stop and vehicle intrusion were unlawful (mere encounter only; no reasonable suspicion or probable cause). The suppression court denied the motion; Fuller was convicted after a bench trial and sentenced. Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police conducted a mere encounter rather than an investigative detention that ripened into arrest | Commonwealth: detention was justified by radioed description, location, time, and Fuller’s furtive movements | Fuller: officers had only a hunch; occupants were doing nothing wrong; only a request for information was warranted | Court: stop was an investigative detention supported by reasonable suspicion (totality of circumstances) |
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to detain Fuller | Commonwealth: combination of assault description, proximity in time/place, matching description, furtive reaching in high-crime area supported reasonable suspicion | Fuller: furtive movement alone is innocent; officer admitted acting on a hunch; car legally parked | Court: furtive movement plus the other facts supported reasonable suspicion and justified the protective sweep |
| Whether protective sweep/search of vehicle was lawful without warrant | Commonwealth: officer performed a safety sweep after observing furtive movement and while securing the scene; contraband in area of sweep lawfully seized | Fuller: no probable cause or exigency for a warrantless search | Court: protective sweep of the area where defendant reached was lawful and items observed there were seized lawfully |
| Whether evidence should be suppressed | Commonwealth: evidence found during lawful detention/sweep is admissible | Fuller: evidence obtained via unlawful detention/search must be suppressed | Court: suppression denial affirmed; evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Foglia, 979 A.2d 357 (Pa. Super. 2009) (defines reasonable-suspicion standard and totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Buchert, 68 A.3d 911 (Pa. Super. 2013) (furtive movements during a nighttime stop can justify a protective sweep)
- Commonwealth v. Simmen, 58 A.3d 811 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression denials; suppression court credibility determinations are binding when supported)
- Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 46 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (procedural guidance on appellate review of suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (standards for allowing a defendant to proceed pro se)