Commonwealth v. Delvalle, 74 A.3d 1081

On October 30, 2010, two undercover Philadelphia officers conducted a 3:45 p.m. drug surveillance near a high drug-traffic area.
Officer Crawford observed co-defendant Melendez hand Appellant small items from her hoodie, which Appellant immediately placed in the front of his pants.
Melendez then helped arrange buyers; each buyer handed Melendez money and received items later retrieved from Melendez’s hoodie pocket.
Over about 20 minutes, four similar transactions occurred in which Appellant directed buyers to Melendez and concealed items in his clothing; the items were heroin packets stamped 'Moon Dust'.
When arrested, Appellant had two bundles of heroin; Melendez also had two bundles and $59 in cash; the drugs were seized in a high-crime area for heroin and crack cocaine.
Appellant was charged with PWID, possession, and conspiracy; suppression of the heroin was denied; trial proceeded as a non-jury trial, yielding guilty verdicts and a sentence of three to six years plus probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probable cause supported arrest and search	Delvalle argues no nexus; observed conduct was not illegal by itself.	State contends officer experience and totality of circumstances established probable cause.	Probable cause existed; nexus shown by totality of circumstances and officer experience.
Whether verdict was against the weight of the evidence	Appellant contends he was only a buyer, not a carnival barker; Melendez did not conceal agreement.	Appellant asserts the evidence does not support ongoing conspiracy or possession as charged.	Weight claim waived due to underdeveloped argument and lack of authorities cited.
Whether the mandatory minimum was correctly applied	State argues aggregate weight of heroin from Appellant and Melendez supports minimum sentence.	Appellant contends weights should not be aggregated because possession by Melendez was not his.	The trial court properly aggregated weights due to ongoing conspiracy; Johnson and Perez control.

Commonwealth v. Hoppert, 89 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings; plenary review on legal conclusions)
Commonwealth v. Dunlap, 941 A.2d 671 (Pa. 2007) (police training/experience as a lens, not a standalone fact, for probable cause)
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009) (officer experience may be a relevant factor if nexus shown between experience and observed conduct)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 26 A.3d 1078 (Pa. 2011) (conspiracy alone not enough for mandatory minimum; ongoing conspiracy allows aggregation)
Commonwealth v. Perez, 931 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. 2007) (ongoing conspiracy allows aggregation of drugs across conspirators for mandatory minimum)
Commonwealth v. Lawson, 309 A.2d 391 (Pa. 1973) (factors for determining probable cause include location, number of transactions, and context)