*2 EAGEN, O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, Before NIX MANDERINO, JJ. and
OPINION MANDERINO, Justice. Gullick, were with
Appellees, charged several Substance, violations of the Controlled Drug, Device and Act, conspiracy, corrupting Cosmetic the morals of a trial, sought minor. Prior to appellees suppress certain of, obtained at the by police evidence time to, their arrest. This is an subsequent appeal by prose- *3 from an order of the trial court cution suppressing evidence. The trial court held that the evidence of an product illegal was the search and seizure because arrest was not based on cause. The appellees’ affirmed, curiam, Superior per Court Commonwealth v. Gre- ber, Pa.Super. We granted for allowance of appellant’s petition appeal, and this appeal followed. We affirm. are the facts as stated
Following by the trial court: “On Officer Dan February Matuszak of the Police, Mount took up Lebanon a surveillance from a building he could observe the whereby area around Bowl- ing This surveillance was City. conducted at approxi- 10:00 m. The was a mately p. high area crime area. From a distance of several hundred feet Officer Matuszak viewed the entire area of the parking Bowling City park- lot with a of binoculars. ing pair m., At 10:20 Matuszak approximately p. Officer noticed a juvenile at the front entrance to standing Bowling City juvenile itself. The made several to the trips lot parking as if he were Each time he looking somebody. would return to the doorway. into a Ford
Eventually, Mustang pulled lot. parking the vehicle juvenile approached and talked for a The vehicle then to the pulled moment. corner of the and the followed on foot. The building juvenile juvenile side and passenger spoke then with the approached A was handed out of the car. He it occupants. bag held Thereafter, it. to his face as if to smell he it up placed feet out of pulled something his his pocket to be either a billfold or a wallet. Officer appeared Matuszak could see the flash of a bill or However, bills. on cross-examination Officer Matuszak stated that what juvenile he flash bills could have thought a credit card or a or it piece paper, been could have well anything. been then juvenile bag up picked proceeded to the main
walk back toward entrance of Bowling City. testified that the activity Officer Matuszak of the juvenile However, appear in itself did not be criminal. stated that it was common action to sniff the during buy before was made. payment merchandise It Matuszak’s that he testimony was Officer assumed a He, thereafter, sale of narcotics had been made. contact- car that was working ed a area. In a short patrol car patrol operated by time the Officer McGinnis arrived position scene. Officer McGinnis car in a defendants, that blocked the vehicle in question. Gullick, were in said *4 that he Officer McGinnistestified received the radio police from Officer Matuszak at message approximately p. 10:38 buy m. He was told that a had been made parking course, mere assumption lot. Of this was a on the part Matuszak. He was also told juvenile Officer that a re- automobile, it, the bag ceived a from smelled and walked the vehicle. Officer away from McGinnis was given of the vehicle in juvenile and of the description question took the He was told that the bag. juvenile who had set down. paper bag
67 When Officer McGinnis came to the parking lot he in directly Thereafter, front of the vehicle in question. asked the driver for his license and owner’s card. Officer McGinnis then turned toward the juvenile who was walk- towards him. He asked the ing juvenile to pick up his bag. juvenile indicated that the bag was not his. At that point, it, Officer McGinnis retrieved the bag, opened and inside viewed a clear plastic bag containing marijua- omitted.) na.” citations (Transcript juvenile appellees, Gullick, were under placed arrest. The vehicle was searched and then taken to the A police garage. search warrant obtained, was to pursuant warrant, the vehicle was again searched, this time more thoroughly. The search revealed a scale, and a half kilogram of suspected marijuana trunk of the car. Greber was also found to be carrying vial a small containing amount of marijuana.
The prosecution contends that the tangible evidence should not have been It suppressed. concedes that conduct of the police officer, to prior his search of the bag, justified not on the basis of cause. The however, prosecution, would have us apply rationale of U.S. S.Ct. 20 L.Ed.2d (1968) to the circumstances in this case. We decline to do so. does not prosecution dispute that detaining appellees by blocking their automobile constituted a seizure within the of the meaning Fourth Amendment. Even if such an arrest, intrusion is not an as the prosecution argues, and if Terry is the seizure in applicable, this case does not meet the requirements A Terry. stop investigatory is if purposes justified under Terry only “police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably conclude in light experience criminal activity may . be afoot . ..” (Emphasis added.) Terry, supra, U.S. 1 at S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 911. Even if we were to this rationale to apply case, the present the police conduct here would remain unlawful because the record satisfies us that these officers did police not observe any *5 by conduct. As noted correctly suppression
unusual court, simply the officer “assumed” that criminal question conduct was occurring. Lawson, v.
In Commonwealth Pa. that (1973), “[e]very A.2d we stated commercial citizens on a street corner when transaction between uniden does not to give is involved rise property tified This statement applies equally cause for an arrest.” to this here do not rise to a give situation. facts reasonable was afoot. activity that criminal Whether an conclusion a citizen detain of investi briefly purposes officer should course, will, of activity criminal gating suspected depend of each case. Commonwealth the facts and circumstances v. Jones, (1977). A.2d 835 The acts of appel 474 Pa. car, a stopping in a riding bowling alley, lees here — a all acts that were exchanging package outwardly —were 98, 103-104, v. 361 U.S. Henry, innocent. Cf. United States 139-40 What 4 L.Ed.2d occurred 80 S.Ct. transaction, not a series of here was one isolated transac which, circumstances might under certain indicate that tions See, Common drugs taking place. an exchange Larson, had prior wealth v. Officer Matuszak no supra. a transaction would occur on this drug information that There was no reasonable basis to conclude simply evening. package, shopping bag large enough that this particular to contain objects, happened a countless number of contain have been curiosity While the officer’s drugs. might illegal witnessed, while that was aroused action have had a hunch that contraband was in illegal might v. volved, supra; is not sufficient. See Jones, supra. Commonwealth Order Affirmed. J., not
JONES, participate former C. did decision of this case.
ROBERTS, J., filed concurring opinion. O’BRIEN, J.,
EAGEN, J., concurred in the result. C. NIX, J., dissents.
ROBERTS, Justice, concurring. *6 of the agree I that the order court suppression suppressing be evidence must affirmed. The role of an appel- court in reviewing suppression late is orders well-estab- As stated Court in lished. this Commonwealth v. by Brown, 562, 1260, 566, (1977): 473 Pa. 375 1262 A.2d motions, “When suppression on the ruling suppression is required court to make of findings fact conclusions law evidence of as to whether was obtained in violation of rights. the defendant’s constitutional 323(i). Pa.R.Crim.P. must suppression court determine whether the Com- monwealth has established by a of the preponderance challenged evidence that the evidence is admissible. See review, Pa.R.Crim.P. On our 323(h). is responsibility ‘to record determine whether the supports factual find- of ings the court below and the of legitimacy the inferenc- and legal es conclusions drawn from those findings.’ Goodwin, 516, 521, 460 892, Commonwealth v. Pa. 333 A.2d (1975).” 895 Stafford, 95, 101, Commonwealth v. 451
See Pa. 301 A.2d 600, (1973); 604 v. 449 35, 44, Commonwealth Pa. Sharpe, A.2d 524 (1972).
Here, the court found that an arrest suppression occurred when officer vehicle so as to positioned prevent of car. There is appellant’s ample support movement to support finding. record See Commonwealth v. Bo- A.2d Pa. surgi, suppres- court further that appellant’s sion found arrest was not probable based cause. Commonwealth agrees that did not cause to arrest exist at the time the police officer front of appellant’s directly Ac- court’s conclusion that cordingly, suppression the evi- must be because dence suppressed subsequent search an unlawful is supported followed arrest the record and is Thus, not erroneous as a law. need matter we not discuss issue of whether the officer’s search justified under v. (1968) 392 U.S. S.Ct. 1868 and its progeny. suppressing of the court evi- suppression
The order must be affirmed. dence Pennsylvania
COMMONWEALTH LEE, (two cases). Appellant James E.
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court Nov. Submitted *7 April Decided