Com. v. Rivera, B.
Com. v. Rivera, B. No. 59 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- Officer Bates (SCU) surveilled a high-drug area and observed what he believed were multiple hand-to-hand drug transactions and a money-exchange (money‑laundering) pattern involving Rivera, who rode a red bicycle and wore a grey/white hoodie.
- Bates radioed descriptions to other units; Officers Fiore and Fustine located Rivera on the bicycle, exited their vehicle, and Rivera fled on foot after abandoning the bike.
- During the foot pursuit, Officer Fiore recovered a thick roll of cash ($482) along Rivera’s flight path; Rivera’s wallet and phone at arrest contained far less cash.
- A traffic stop of another participant, Wissler, yielded suspected heroin in the car; Wissler told police he had bought heroin from “Benji,” described consistently with Rivera; a call to the number Wissler gave connected to Rivera’s phone.
- Rivera was charged with possession with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia; he moved to suppress the discarded cash and objected to admission of Wissler’s out‑of‑court statement.
- The trial court denied suppression, convicted Rivera, and sentenced him; Rivera appealed arguing (1) unlawful seizure/abandonment rule and (2) improper hearsay/confrontation violation. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Rivera) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Rivera (so discarded cash was admissible) | Bates observed hand‑to‑hand exchanges, money‑laundering conduct, and relayed description; Fiore/Fustine lawfully detained based on that information | Officers seized Rivera when exiting vehicle without individualized reasonable suspicion; any subsequent flight produced coerced/abandoned evidence inadmissible | Held: Officers had reasonable suspicion based on Bates’ observations and relay; suppression denial affirmed |
| Whether Wissler’s out‑of‑court statement was admissible under present sense impression / Confrontation Clause | Statement was admissible (or in any event harmless) | Wissler’s hearsay statement was not a present sense impression and its admission violated Confrontation Clause | Held: Admission under present sense impression was error (statement made >5 minutes later), but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming independent evidence of guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Clemens, 66 A.3d 373 (Pa. Super. 2013) (officer’s observation of a hand‑to‑hand exchange in a high‑drug area can supply reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Taggart, 997 A.2d 1189 (Pa. Super. 2010) (items abandoned during pursuit after an unlawful seizure are fruits of the seizure and inadmissible)
- Commonwealth v. Donaldson, 786 A.2d 279 (Pa. Super. 2001) (mere entering/exiting vehicle in a high‑drug area insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 779 A.2d 591 (Pa. Super. 2001) (ambiguous gestures in a high‑drug area do not establish reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Tither, 671 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 1996) (reaching into a vehicle in a high‑drug area alone insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
- Croyle v. Smith, 918 A.2d 142 (Pa. Super. 2007) (statements made minutes after an event are not present sense impressions)
- Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 989 A.2d 883 (Pa. 2010) (five to ten minutes is sufficient time for reflective thought; statement not within excited/present sense exceptions)