Com. v. Ruiz, Y., Com. v. Ruiz, Y. No. 933 EDA 2016

On Jan. 7, 2015, plainclothes narcotics officers in an unmarked car observed a man counting cash who briefly entered then exited a Toyota Camry driven by Yamile Ruiz; officers followed Ruiz for several blocks.
While following, Officer Bogan testified he ran the vehicle’s tag and “believe[d]” it came back “inconclusive” (no recorded owner), but gave no detail about the query or source.
Officers continued surveillance as Ruiz entered a Macy’s; a marked unit later stopped her vehicle in the mall parking lot.
As officers approached Ruiz’s car they smelled a strong odor of marijuana; Officer Bogan felt a bulge in the headliner and recovered a plastic bag with marijuana, leading to arrest and additional contraband.
Ruiz moved to suppress evidence, arguing the initial stop lacked reasonable suspicion/pc; the trial court granted the motion and the Commonwealth appealed.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding the officer’s uncertain testimony about an “inconclusive” tag check was insufficient to meet the Commonwealth’s burden to show objective reasonable suspicion for the stop.

Issue	Commonwealth’s Argument	Ruiz’s Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based on a computer tag inquiry that allegedly returned “inconclusive”	The tag check showed no registered owner, which objectively supplied reasonable suspicion to seize the vehicle and occupants	The officer’s testimony was uncertain and gave no context for the “inconclusive” result; therefore no reasonable suspicion existed	The tag-check testimony was too equivocal and lacking context to establish reasonable suspicion; stop was unlawful
Whether evidence recovered after the stop (marijuana, scale, cash) should be suppressed	The odor of marijuana and subsequent discovery supplied probable cause to search and arrest, so evidence is admissible	Because the initial stop lacked reasonable suspicion, the evidence was the fruit of an unlawful seizure and must be suppressed	Because the stop was unlawful, the Commonwealth did not meet its burden to justify the seizure; suppression affirmed

Zhahir v. Commonwealth, 751 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 2000) (objective reasonable-suspicion inquiry controls)
Wallace v. Commonwealth, 42 A.3d 1040 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Commonwealth bears burden by a preponderance to prove evidence was legally obtained at suppression hearing)
Nester v. Commonwealth, 709 A.2d 879 (Pa. 1998) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Swartz v. Commonwealth, 787 A.2d 1021 (Pa. Super. 2001) (vehicle stops are seizures subject to constitutional limits)
Hendricks v. Commonwealth, 927 A.2d 289 (Pa. Super. 2007) (traffic stops require objective facts creating reasonable suspicion of a vehicle-code violation or crime)