Com. v. Tillery, S.
249 A.3d 278
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background:
- At ~1:30 a.m. on Aug. 22, 2018, Steven Tillery pulled into a parking spot outside a grocery on Woodland Ave., Philadelphia; officers stopped the vehicle and later recovered a gun from the center console.
- Officer Kanan testified he stopped the car because Tillery pulled into the parking spot without using a turn signal; he admitted he observed no furtive movements, odors, contraband, or bulges before searching.
- Tillery’s brother, Kalil, testified the officers did not use lights/sirens until the car stopped, did not ask for license/registration, and that Kanan never asked about weapons before removing Tillery from the car.
- The suppression court made adverse credibility findings about Officer Kanan and concluded the officers lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause to stop and remove Tillery; the court suppressed the gun and related statements as fruit of the poisonous tree.
- Superior Court reviewed only the defense evidence and any uncontradicted Commonwealth evidence, accepted the suppression court’s credibility determinations, and affirmed suppression because the Vehicle Code does not require signaling to enter a parking space.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was lawful when Tillery pulled into a parking spot without signaling | Stop lawful: officer reasonably concluded Tillery violated the turn-signal requirement, justifying the stop | No violation: §3334(a) does not require signaling to pull into a parking spot; thus no probable cause for stop | Stop unlawful: court held no probable cause; signal not required to park, so stop invalid |
| Whether Tillery’s blurted admission ("the gun is mine") is admissible or fruit of an illegal stop | Admission admissible as an independent statement not tainted by the stop | Admission is poisonous fruit of the illegal stop and must be suppressed | Admission suppressed as fruit of the illegal stop |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cartegena, 63 A.3d 294 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for suppression appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Millner, 888 A.2d 680 (Pa. 2005) (appellate limits when suppression court fails to issue findings of fact)
- Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 130 A.3d 697 (Pa. 2015) (credibility findings are for the suppression court)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (U.S. 2015) (mistake-of-law doctrine for reasonable officer belief)
- Commonwealth v. Slattery, 139 A.3d 221 (Pa. Super. 2016) (interpretation of §3334 signaling requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 64 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Super. 2013) (when a traffic-violation stop requires probable cause vs. reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Richard, 238 A.3d 522 (Pa. Super. 2020) (stop issues based on similar signal/parking facts)