Com. v. Jones, J., 3468 EDA 2014

On June 8, 2013, Officer Stacy Wallace (narcotics unit) conducted surveillance near 900 N. Broad St.; observed Jamaz Jones and Kevin Baldwin in a parking area.
Officer Wallace saw two separate females approach Baldwin, who directed them to Jones; each female handed Jones money and Jones reached into his buttocks area, produced a clear baggie, and handed small pink objects to each woman.
After the second woman was stopped, she placed a pink object into her mouth; backup officers then stopped Jones and recovered $327 and a black iPhone on his person.
At the police station a strip search produced a clear baggy recovered from Jones’s anus containing nine heat-sealed packets of cocaine.
Jones was charged with possession with intent to deliver, simple possession, and conspiracy; he moved to suppress evidence (denied), was convicted after a non-jury trial, and sentenced to 11.5–23 months (house arrest allowed) plus three years probation.
On appeal Jones challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence and (2) the suppression ruling (probable cause for arrest); the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Jones's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict for possession/intent and conspiracy	Evidence (observed hand-to-hand transactions, recovered money, drugs found on Jones) supported convictions	Evidence was insufficient; only showed conversations and officer observation; drugs only found after strip search, not at scene	Waived by Jones for failing to specify which elements were unsupported; court did not reverse
Motion to suppress — whether officers had probable cause to arrest Jones	Officer Wallace’s observations of two witnessed hand-to-hand transactions (money exchanged for drugs), aided by binoculars, plus the second suspect’s conduct provided facts sufficient for probable cause	Arrest lacked probable cause because drugs were not located on Jones at the scene and were only found later during a strip search	Denial of suppression affirmed: totality of circumstances supplied probable cause for warrantless arrest

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures)
Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) consequences for failure to timely file)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 2008) (sufficiency claims must specify which elements were not proven)
Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122 (Pa. 2007) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (Pa. 2013) (scope of review for suppression rulings limited to evidence presented at suppression hearing)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 736 A.2d 624 (Pa. Super. 1999) (probable cause standard for warrantless arrest)
Commonwealth v. Acosta, 815 A.2d 1078 (Pa. Super. 2003) (categorization of police-citizen interactions: encounter, detention, arrest)