Com. v. Thomas, R., Com. v. Thomas, R. No. 1208 WDA 2015

On August 14, 2012, undercover officers surveilling a high-drug-trafficking block observed Robert Thomas approach a parked car, reach into his right pocket, hand small white packets to a vehicle passenger, receive cash, and walk away. Officers were in plain clothes in an unmarked vehicle about 75–100 feet away.
Officer William Mudron testified he recognized the packets as consistent with heroin based on his narcotics training and experience; other officers recovered four white stamp bags of heroin from the passenger’s mouth and $40 in Thomas’s left pocket.
Thomas was arrested, gave a false name initially, and a search incident to arrest recovered currency and an iPhone; the recovered packets tested positive for heroin.
Thomas moved to suppress, arguing lack of probable cause for the arrest and therefore that subsequent search, seizure, and statements were unlawful; the suppression court denied the motion.
At a stipulated non-jury trial the suppression hearing testimony was adopted; Thomas was convicted of PWID, possession, and false identification and sentenced to 2–4 years plus probation.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding (1) the officer’s testimony and experience supplied a sufficient nexus for probable cause under the totality-of-circumstances and (2) the circumstantial evidence sufficed to support PWID and possession convictions.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Thomas's Argument	Held
Whether officers had probable cause to arrest and whether the subsequent warrantless search/seizure/interrogation should be suppressed	Officer Mudron’s observations plus his training/experience and the high-crime location created probable cause to arrest after witnessing an apparent hand-to-hand drug transaction	Mudron was too far away to identify packets or the exchange; his testimony about training lacked a specific nexus to these observations, so no probable cause and suppression required	Denied. Court found Mudron credible, his training/experience tied to observations, and totality of circumstances supported probable cause; suppression properly denied
Whether evidence was sufficient to support PWID and possession when drugs were recovered from another person	Circumstantial evidence (observed exchange, recovery of four heroin packets from passenger, $40 in defendant’s pocket matching packet price) permitted inference Thomas possessed and sold the heroin	Police could not reliably see the exchange from distance; absence of fingerprints/DNA and lack of direct proof linking Thomas to recovered packets rendered the evidence insufficient	Affirmed. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the circumstantial evidence supported verdicts for PWID and possession

Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009) (officer experience may be relevant to probable cause when a nexus to observations is shown)
Commonwealth v. Dunlap, 941 A.2d 671 (Pa. 2008) (officer training/experience must be tied to specific facts; totality-of-circumstances analysis)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review for suppression findings)
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 141 A.3d 523 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Little, 879 A.2d 293 (Pa. Super. 2005) (PWID can be proven by circumstantial evidence)