Aрpellant Anthony Haskins was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possеssion of a small amount of maryuana. He was sentenced to four to ten years imprisonment and a fíne of $10,000.00. This direct appeal followed. We vaсate the judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues.
(1) The trial court should have suppressed the evidence found in the car during a warrantless seаrch.
(2) The trial court should have suppressed evidence found in a jacket in the car during a warrantless search.
(3) The trial court should have suppressеd the evidence because it was the fruit of an illegal detention.
(4) The trial court should have granted a mistrial because the court told the jury about the аnonymous tip the police received even though this information was not admitted into evidence.
(5) The evidence was insufficient to establish that Appellant possessed the cocaine and paraphernalia.
(6) The court abused its discretion by sentencing Appellant outside the guidelines.
*543 Becаuse of our disposition, we need to reach only issues one, two and five.
Between 7:00 and 7:30 in the evening on September 14, 1994, Corporal Craig LeCadre of thе Community Attack on Narcotics (CAN.) unit of the Harrisburg police received information that an anonymous citizen had called the dispatch center to report that there was a drug dealer in the 1700 block of North 5th Street wearing a black, gray and red shirt. This person also indicated that the individual was driving a gray Volkswagen Rabbit with the license plate ANK-6080. Ten or fifteen minutes later, the same person called again. This time Corporal LeCadre spoke directly to the рerson and was given the same information as had been given during the first call. Around ten minutes later, two unmarked CAN. Unit cars arrived in the area. They drove around the аrea but did not find either the alleged drug dealer or the car. Eventually, one of the officers saw Appellant’s car, which had the same license plаte number as the caller had given. Both police cars followed Appellant to the intersection of Third and Maclay Streets where Appellаnt stopped at a red light. Two officers left their car and approached Appellant’s car and stated that they wanted to talk to him. Appellant then proceeded through the red light and the police followed. After a brief pursuit, Appellant got out of the moving car and fled. The car ran intо a parked car. A passenger was in Appellant’s car. Two officers chased Appellant on foot. The other two officers stayed -with the car. During the foot chase, Appellant threw away a plastic sandwich bag containing marijuana. Once Appellant was caught, one officer rеtrieved the bag and radioed the other officers that Appellant was apprehended and that Appellant had thrown away the bag of marijuanа. The officers who were still at Appellant’s car searched it. In the glove compartment, the officers found money. In the rear hatch area, thе officers found $200 in cash in a sock, razor blades and ziplock bags. In the pocket of a jacket which was in the middle of the two front seats, the officers found fifty ziplock bags of cocaine.
*544
We must first determine whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Appellant possessed the cocaine and the paraphernalia because if the evidence is not sufficient we would have to reverse the conviction and would not need to rеach any other issues. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view all the evidence admitted at trial, together with all reаsonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.
Commonwealth v. Jackson,
When contraband is not found on the defendant’s person, the Commonweаlth must establish “constructive possession,” that is, the power to control the contraband and the intent to exercise that control.
Commonwealth v. Valette,
The money found in the glove compartment and the money and paraphernalia found in the hatch area were located in areas usually accessible only to the operator of a vehicle. Thus, we have no difficulty in concluding that the evidence was more than sufficient to establish possession of these items.
There is also sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish Appellant’s pоssession of the cocaine found in the jacket. The jacket was located between the two front seats. Appellant was not wearing a jacket; his passenger was wearing a jacket. The jacket matched the hat which Appellant was *545 wearing. These facts coupled with the possession of the money and paraphernalia supply ample evidence to establish that Appellant possessed the cocaine. Accordingly, we cannot agree that judgment should be arrested.
We do, however, agree with Appellant that the suppression order must be reversed as to the evidence found in the car. That evidence should have been suppressed because no exigent circumstances existed to excuse the laсk of a search warrant.
The trial court herein excused the lack of a warrant because of “the automobile exception to the warrant requirement ...” Opinion at p. 3. There is no
per se
automobile exception to the warrant requirement. In order to search an automobile without a warrant, the police must still show the existence of both probable cause and exigent circumstances.
Commonwealth v. White,
Herein the police have not established exigent circumstances such as would excuse them from obtaining a warrant to search the automobile nor is the search permissible as a search incident to arrest. When the search took рlace, Appellant had fled the vehicle and was being apprehended a distance away. His passenger was also outside of the car аnd being detained by the police. Neither Appellant nor his passenger had access to the vehicle. The police have not shown any reаson why they could not have obtained a warrant before searching the car since Appellant was already in custody and there was no danger thаt any contraband within the car could be removed by him. Accordingly, any evidence found inside the car should have been suppressed.
Suppression order reversed and evidence seized from automobile suppressed; judgment of sentence vacated; case remanded for new trial. Jurisdiction relinquished.