Com. v. Sierra, P.
904 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- Around midnight, SEPTA officers observed Pedro G. Sierra urinating on a bus terminal wall in Philadelphia in public view, violating a city ordinance.
- Officers asked for identification; Sierra refused, appeared intoxicated or under the influence, and repeatedly reached toward his waistband despite commands.
- Officers arrested Sierra for public urination, handcuffed him, and conducted a search incident to arrest, recovering a handgun and a bag of cocaine.
- Sierra was charged with multiple firearm offenses, possession of a controlled substance, and the public urination ordinance violation; he lost a suppression motion and was convicted at a nonjury trial.
- On appeal, Sierra argued the officers lacked authority/reasonable suspicion to arrest him for the summary ordinance violation, so the ensuing search and the seized gun and drugs should have been suppressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the arrest for public urination lawful? | Arrest valid under 53 P.S. §13349 for breaches of Philadelphia ordinances; officers observed the offense. | Arrest unlawful because summary offense did not authorize warrantless arrest absent other misconduct (relying on Bullers). | Arrest lawful: §13349 authorizes immediate arrest for Philadelphia ordinance violations. |
| Was the search that found the gun and drugs lawful? | Search valid as incident to a lawful arrest; no separate justification required. | Search invalid because arrest itself was unlawful; alternatively, Terry justification argued but not necessary. | Search lawful as incident to a valid arrest; admitted evidence upheld. |
| Does Bullers control to bar warrantless arrest for summary offenses? | Not applicable here because §13349 specifically authorizes arrest for Philadelphia ordinances. | Bullers held warrantless arrest for a summary offense (underage drinking) invalid absent statutory arrest authority. | Bullers distinguished: authority in §13349 permits immediate arrest for Philadelphia ordinance violations. |
| Was suppression court’s credibility and legal ruling reviewable? | Credibility findings entitled to deference; Commonwealth evidence controls where conflict exists. | Contested officers' account, but did not successfully overturn factual findings. | Suppression court’s factual findings are supported; legal conclusions correct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haslam v. Commonwealth, 138 A.3d 680 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for suppression decisions and deference to suppression court credibility findings)
- Ventura v. Commonwealth, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (search incident to a valid arrest authorizes warrantless search)
- Rose v. Commonwealth, 755 A.2d 700 (Pa. Super. 2000) (Section 13349 authorizes arrest for Philadelphia ordinance violations)
- Bullers v. Commonwealth, 637 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1994) (warrantless arrest for summary offenses invalid absent statutory authorization)
- Spahn v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 977 A.2d 1132 (Pa. 2009) (Philadelphia is the only first-class city in Pennsylvania)
- In Interest of William, 655 A.2d 158 (Pa. Super. 1995) (upholding juvenile arrest where local ordinance specifically authorized immediate arrest)