Commonwealth v. Tam Thanh Nguyen
116 A.3d 657
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- At ~3:15 AM troopers stopped a Mercedes for speeding (73 MPH in a 55 zone) and following too closely; troopers were uniformed in a marked vehicle.
- After checking records, Trooper Bromberg issued a written warning, returned papers, and told driver and passenger (Nguyen) they were free to go.
- Trooper Bromberg then intentionally reapproached the driver, asked additional questions, and requested consent to search; the driver consented.
- Trooper Bromberg ordered Nguyen out of the car, obtained Nguyen’s consent to a frisk, felt a soft package, which Nguyen identified as OxyContin; Nguyen was then arrested and a search incident to arrest recovered cash, cell phone, and controlled substances.
- Nguyen moved to suppress evidence as fruit of an illegal detention and coerced/overbroad search; the trial court denied suppression, Nguyen was convicted of PWID, sentenced to mandatory minimum, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Nguyen’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pat‑down/search should be suppressed because it followed an illegal second detention after the traffic stop ended | The troopers ended the stop then re‑engaged the occupants without new reasonable suspicion; the subsequent detention and frisk were unlawful, so all evidence should be suppressed | The re‑engagement was lawful and consent was voluntary; the subsequent frisk and searches were justified | Reversed: the re‑engagement was a second investigative detention without reasonable suspicion, consent was tainted, so the evidence should have been suppressed |
| Whether nervousness and furtive movement supplied reasonable suspicion for the second detention | Such observations suffice when viewed with other facts | Officer’s observations and records justified further inquiry | Held insufficient: nervousness/furtive movements and known rap sheet (learned before end of stop) do not provide independent reasonable suspicion after the stop ended |
| Whether consent to search the vehicle was voluntary and untainted by prior illegality | Driver’s consent was voluntary | Driver/occupants freely consented after being told they could leave | Held tainted: temporal proximity, lack of intervening circumstances, and surrounding coercive conditions vitiated consent |
| Whether suppression hearing was fair and other claims (Miranda, sentencing) need review | Raised multiple additional claims (Miranda, discovery, mandatory minimum) | Commonwealth defended on the merits below | Court remanded for a new trial; other claims not reached due to suppression ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Freeman, 757 A.2d 903 (Pa. 2000) (second round of questioning after end of traffic stop can constitute a new seizure)
- Commonwealth v. Moyer, 954 A.2d 659 (Pa. Super. 2008) (continued police engagement after detention can create custodial interrogation; free‑to‑go language is not dispositive)
- Commonwealth v. Reppert, 814 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Super. 2002) (seizure analysis asks whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- Commonwealth v. Sierra, 723 A.2d 644 (Pa. 1999) (consent following an illegal detention is invalid unless taint is attenuated)
- Commonwealth v. Plante, 914 A.2d 916 (Pa. Super. 2006) (reasonable‑suspicion standard requires articulable facts and reasonable inferences)
- Commonwealth v. Moyer, 954 A.2d 659 (Pa. Super. 2008) (reaffirming limits on using demeanor alone to justify detention)