*1 Henderson, 289, at 804 Pa. at Pennsylvania
(“The difficulty in the greatest enforce- COMMONWEALTH prophylactic of a rule intended to Appellee ment liberties is account guard individual society’s competing in interest in value RANDOLPH, Appellant Jason Robert punishing wrongdoers.”). identifying view, my point particularly given From No. 1246 MDA 2015 parole in the revocation set- offenders Pennsylvania. Superior Court of expectation privacy, a ting have lesser societal light strong interest Argued April ensuring parole-release compliance 16, FILED NOVEMBER I requirements, find more re- appropriate balance is to de- strained parole-revo- suppression
cline award proceedings in the absence of a
cation
judicial determination law enforce- supervising officials with an
ment acted See, Logan
improper e.g., motive. v. Com
monwealth, 688 S.E.2d Va. (2010) (implementing ap- such an
278-79 defining “bad faith” as di-
proach, while
rected to scenarios which “the search bias, animus, personal motivated a harass, intent to cir-
desire conscious law, improper or a
cumvent similar
motive”).
Finally, suggest I would also that such approach greater poten-
an have would sustainability
tial for relative a balanc- concerning assessment which reason- always
able minds will differ. Accord
Henderson, 616 Pa. at at 805 I,
(positing that ‘twin aims’ Article “the 8—namely, safeguarding
Section
privacy probable- enforcement requirement—may be vindicated
best, stably, taking most a more approach departure
conservative
this Court has from the established taken jurisprudence”).
Fourth Amendment fairly remedy counterparty possess- vantage ranked as the state "[e]xclusion is as sought by putatively consequence it in- es to the extent as of the constitutional jured party, purports wrong.” an ad- eliminate Id. *4 Dunkle, for ap-
Jason S. College, State. pellant. Osterberg,
Michael M. District Assistant Attorney,- Bellefonté, Commonwealth, for appellee. P.J.E., ELLIOTT,
BEFORE: FORD JENKINS, J., PLATT, J.* * Judge assigned Superior Retired Senior Court. JENKINS, product was not the BY J.:
OPINION and coercion? duress his aggre- Randolph appeals from Jason years’ gate judgment of sentence 5½-11 court err find- suppression 2. Did with intent imprisonment possession for [Ran- the search warrant substance, possession a controlled deliver dolph’s] sufficient vehicle contained substance, possession of a controlled justify its issuance? of an possession drug paraphernalia permitting court 3. Did trial err Randolph contends crime.1 instrument hearsay to present denying his trial court erred in that the testimony testifying trooper from a all evidence Cor- suppress motion reports troopers from other about Police poral the State Brett fingerprint phone cell discussed motor from a box welded seized analysis? stop on following vehicle a traffic Inter- state 80. Appellant, For Brief Although val- Corporal Hanlon obtained Preliminarily, jurisdiction- we address to search the Randolph id consent from al On 2015—after issue. June stop, at the scene appeal within ten his notice but filed although corporal correctly decided *5 days imposition after of sentence—the box, the apply for warrant the modify filed a motion application failed to establish September On Randolph’s sentence. contain contra- the box would 2015, the trial court denied the Common- Therefore, we band evidence crime. Court, In this motion. the Com- wealth’s vacate of sentence Randolph’s judgment to quash Randolph’s has moved monwealth con- proceedings and remand for further filing of premature as appeal due opinion. sistent with this modify motion to sen- the Commonwealth’s 7, 2013, Randolph March arrest- On days imposition of tence within ten after following stop ed a traffic on Interstate 80 sentence. and the execution of search warrant the for the motor vehicle. box welded his motion to deny the Commonwealth’s hearing suppression The trial court held a 905(a)(5) “A quash. provides: Pa.R.A.P. deny- subsequently an order entered appeal notice of filed after the announce- Randolph’s ing suppress. motion to aof but before the ment determination trial, proceeded a jury case found entry appealable of an shall be treat- order Randolph guilty charges. of all day on entry ed as filed after such the trial court im- On June the 905(a)(5) applies Rule where thereof.” 20, 2015, posed On Ran- sentence. June appeal defendant files an followed criminal dolph Both Ran- appeal. filed notice timely filing of the Commonwealth’s dolph complied trial with the court Comment, modify motion sentence. Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 720; Darlington, Pennsylvania R.Crim.P. ap- Practice, §
Randolph three issues this Appellate raises 905:3. Pursuant peal: 905(a)(5), Randolph’s appeal Rule we treat timely entry as after order filed suppression
1.Did the court err in hold- motion to presented denying Commonwealth’s the Commonwealth modify. [Randolph’s] sufficient evidence (a)(16) (a)(32), 907(a), 780-113(a)(30), § respectively. §
1. 35 and 18 Pa.C.S. P.S. arguments panied In his first two corporal patrol in his vehicle. appeal, Suppression (“SH”), Randolph objects Hearing the denial of at 11-12. In appeal motion to an suppress. from a.m., At approximately 10:30 Randolph suppress, denial of a motion to Chrysler drove his Town & Country mini past corporaFs parked van patrol cruis ...
[our] standard review limited to er on Corporal 1-80. Hanlon initiated determining suppression whether stop traffic because the minivan’s windows court’s are findings supported by factual illegal contained an tint and because he legal the record and whether conclu- could not see registration on the li sions drawn from those facts are correct. plate. cense parked The driver the vehicle prevailed Because the Commonwealth very fog Corporal close to the line. court, suppression before the may we referred this as “white lining”, a tech only consider the evidence the Com- nique drug'traffickers he has observed use monwealth much of and so the evidence to expedite the stop by discouraging for the defense as remains uncontradict- officer from approaching the ed context of when read the rec- driver side of the vehicle. ord as a the suppression whole. Where findings court’s factual are supported by driving the along van record, passenger. court one appellate [the Hanlon requested is] bound license, may Randolph’s findings registration, [those] reverse insur- if ance and legal patrol conclusions returned to court’s are erro- cruiser .. . n SH, with these appeal neous. 14-18. Where the de- documents. suppression termination of the court Corporal Hanlon ran Randolph’s infor- allegations legal error, turns on the mation and that he a prior drug found suppression legal court’s conclusions are trafficking conviction. After about twenty court, binding appellate an whose minutes, corporal returned to Ran- *6 duty it is to if the suppression determine dolph’s vehicle and directed him to exit the court properly applied the law to the van. corporal The observed that Thus, facts. of the conclusions law of the were rear no seats the van. While he subject to plenary courts below are [] explained the Code violations to Vehicle review. Randolph, trooper, a Trooper second Row- land; operating patrol cruiser, a marked Jones, arrived, on joined scene and the conversa- Corporal tion. Randolph Hanlon advised Corporal Hanlon the lone was witness at issuing warning that he was and written Randolph’s hearing, suppression and the Randolph told free to he was leave. Commonwealth also a videotape submitted SH, at 22. the traffic stop into evidence. The trial later, however, Corporal Moments Han- findings court’s of fact are consistent with lon Randolph asked whether could ask he Corporal testimony Hanlon’s the vid- questions trip. additional about his The eotape. corporal Randolph did not tell that he did Hanlon, Corporal trooper a state for 18 any questions. not have to further answer to years, assigned was the Bureau Randolph corporal told the that he his Emergency Special Operations just in the K-9 wife had from South Carolina -moved 7, 2013, morning unit. On the March to Jersey, why New which was there were Corporal patrol Hanlon’s vehicle was no seats in van. He said that she his had Draco, parked dog, A just baby, travelling 1-80. K-9 accom- had a he was SH, compartment. Columbus, warrant to search Newark, Jersey to from New in the hospi- family to 28-35. Ohio member visit grandmother that his tal. He aunt’s added open It took considerable effort hospitalized in a car accident and was which was accessible compartment, repeated leg. his a broken When through passenger a door underneath the however, account, he was said battery The seat door was minivan. his aunt instead aunt’s going visit opened by powered only be re- and could Randolph no stated he had grandmother. moving passenger applying door and plan not luggage in van and did power through connected wires Columbus, even night staying the corporal managed open door. The trip. round though it 16-hour When alligator clips by attaching compartment asked, hospi- could not name Randolph power. applying the door and Inside the visiting. that he was tal Columbus grams of cocaine compartment were strange it that Ran- Trooper Hanlon found SH, at 35-39. digital and a scale. away from home traveling far dolph was Randolph dispute not Preliminarily, does baby. Randolph or without his wife their stop was Nor legal. initial traffic drug-related prior he had a admitted that he, evidence because the demon- could SH, 23-28. Trooper conviction. Corporal Hanlon strates conversation, Trooper During this Row- Randolph to believe that violated passenger in approached land the mini- by driving with win- Code tinted Vehicle passenger questioned him. van 4524(e)(1) (“no per- § dows. See 75 Pa.C.S. York, from which Cor- claimed to be New any any son motor vehicle with drive shall strange Ran- poral Hanlon found because screening sun other material device SH,, dolph at 23- from South Carolina. permit person which see does through the inside the vehicle view Corporal Hanlon asked windshield, wing side or side window minivan, Ran- consent search the vehicle”). dolph Both Defendant and consented. Randolph’s conclude that patted asked
passenger were
down
valid,
because the
vehicle was
K-9,
stand in front
the vehicle. The
stop
had become mere encounter
Draco,
the vehicle but did
searched
time
obtained
*7
anything. Corporal
alert
Hanlon
consent,
Ran-
Randolph’s
and because
Trooper
then
vehi-
searched the
Rowland
dolph’s
voluntary.
consent was
luggage
cle.
Hanlon
no
saw
minivan,
Mere encounter. The Fourth
multiple
phones
heard
cell
but
ringing
phones.
United States Constitu
and seized the cell
When Amendment
I,
tion
8 of
passen-
Article
Section
the Penn
between the driver and
checked
seats,
sylvania
protect against
ger
a
box extend-
Constitution
he observed
both
steel
searches and seizures. U.S.
from the floor that was
unreasonable
downward
Const,
Const,
IV;
I,
8;§
The box
amend.
Pa.
art.
did
vehicle.
welded
Bustamonte,
218,
412
undercarriage.
match
of the
Schneckloth v.
U.S.
the remainder
2041,
(1973);
219,
drugs,
that the
93 S.Ct.
such
significant,
step
sa-
to
out
remains a
in
he was asked
lawful seizure
directed
totality
to
factor in the
assessment.
of
lient
to the rear
receive
the vehicle
given
warning. [Randolph] was
a written
Id. at 898-99.
and
he was free to
warning
told that
case, the trial court
In this
after both
only
leave. It was
were head-
stop
that the traffic
had devolved into
held
Corporal
ed
toward their vehicles
Corporal Hanlon
a
encounter when
mere
[Randolph].
to
again spoke
Hanlon
Randolph
he
to leave.
told
was free
Pa.R.A.P,
Opinion,
agree
at 5. We
to
questions
Hanlon’s
Corporal
analysis.
See Commonwealth
with this
telling him that
was free to leave
after
1250,
By,
(Pa.Super.2002)
812 encounter, during a
place
took
mere
(following
stop
night,
valid traffic
court
trial
reasoned:
detention. The
to
telling
after
was free
defendant he
in
mid-
interaction occurred
leave,
questioning
officer’s
took
continued
morning.
not have
Corporal Hanlon did
encounter,
place during
where officer
mere
The initial investi-
sirens
his vehicle.
to
spoke casually
non-threateningly
by Corporal
gative detention described
passengers,
passenger’s
on the
side
stood
in
Hanlon was not coercive
nature and
of
vehicle
near driver’s door
instead
Corporal
the interaction between
vehicle,
in
of
no
front
and had
calm
[Randolph]
and cordial.
telling him
contact with defendant before
physical
prior
There was no
contact
to
leave).2
being
given
the search
he was
free
police
Corporal
investigation
2. Had the
Han-
warrant
interaction between
further
Randolph not
lon and
encounter,
devolved into mere
officer.
Smith,
848,
would have
917 A.2d
Hanlon
Commonwealth v.
omitted).
(citations
suspicion
(Pa.Super.2007)
to continue
The offi
needed reasonable
telling
questioning Randolph
"may
cer
him that
ask
detainee moderate number
after
note,
dicta,
questions”
stop
by way
during
of
free to
of
"to deter
leave.
provided
identity
try
mine his
obtain informa
that the circumstances of this case
suspicion
confirming
Trooper
dispelling
tion
sus
reasonable
the officer’s
420,
questioning
picions.”
McCarty,
Randolph.
continue
Berkemer v.
U.S.
3138,
(1984).
179 if The turned and asked Strickler there Consent.3 Commonwealth was proving anything illegal the burden of that de bears the vehicle. When to a fendant consented search. not, warrantless was Strickler stated Acosta, See requested officer Strickler’s consent bane). (en (Pa.Super.2003) To search the vehicle. The officer told Strick- search, voluntary a establish consensual ler that was free to withhold his con- prove the Commonwealth must “that a search, sent. Strickler consented product essentially is the of an marijuana which a smoking pipe. disclosed free and unconstrained choice—not the re test Applying nine-factor delineated coercion, of duress or or im express sult above, our Supreme Court held that or a total plied, will overborne—under the Strickler’s consent voluntary, even Strickler, ity the circumstances.” though the expressly officer never told at 901. A.2d that he Strickler was free leave follow- shortage There is no relat- decisions Strickler, ing the initial lawful detention. point A starting consent. convenient at opined: 900. The Court “[T]he by is two decisions issued on the same date officer not touch did direct his Strickler Com- Supreme Strickler our Court: movements; there is any no evidence of Freeman, monwealth v. 563 Pa. use of coercive language tone A.2d 903 also significant officer. We deem the ar- Strickler, In a a officer observed resting officer’s admonition Strickler parked along country car men road. Two not required he was to consent standing appeared car and near the added). (emphasis Thus, search.” Id. urinating. questioning to be After the men the officer’s admonition that Strickler verifying the documentation for the outweighed could refuse consent the offi- driver, and the the officer returned to expressly cer’s failure advise the defen- time, the documents to the driver. At that following dant that was free to leave officer informed that it was Strickler initial Id. at detention. 901-02. appropriate stop along the road and Freeman, In property. trooper urinate someone’s officer stopped state began walking back his cruiser he Freeman for making improper when lane See, Foster, Corporal e.g., Hanlon observed factors United several States v. 634 F.3d (4th Cir.2011) (defendant's gave suspicion him. reasonable to believe "criminal rec- activity Randolph slop, that criminal was afoot. ord” not sufficient basis for even with line, very
parked fog generalized conclusory close to the which Cor- assertion defendant Here, poral technique presently investigation”). used testified was a “under how- ever, by drug discourage suspicious traffickers to officers there were other details approaching Randolph's prior from driver of the vehi- side addition conviction. Although Randolph driving cle. from when, here, matter, Columbus, as As a threshold Newark to there were no suitcases crime, possessory vehicle, defendant accused of a or back seats circum- an odd cognizable addition, expec- long legally he must establish a trip. stance for In Ran- such Caban, privacy dolph drug tation of in the area searched. prior trafficking had a conviction. case, 126. In this record provided dem- This combination of factors reason- registered suspicion Randolph was the able con- onstrates detain subject investigation possible tinue an owner of the vehicle into criminal A,3d Caban, Accordingly, Randolph wrongdoing. See the search. had rea- at 129-30. juris- expectation privacy We also note from sonable in the areas of that decisions other conviction, prior Trooper indicate dictions the vehicle that Hanlon and itself, suspicion. does not create searched. reasonable Rowland *10 or ‘hunch’ of suspicion and criminal appeared to be a “cat ticularized what changes Id. on the game another car activity.” with mouse” any having Freeman highway. denied result, Freeman’s consent was in- As trooper problem other car. The with the valid, the mandating suppression of fruits warning gave and ad- Freeman written resulting search: leave, the that free to vised she but was Freeman’s preceded that detention followed events that unlawful, to and consent search was trooper’s] [the inconsistent with were consent, even if voluntarily Freeman’s free that she was to Freeman statement ille- given, justify the otherwise will not to trooper] to ...: returned [the leave gal search unless the Commonwealth vehicle; her questioned Freeman’s can that Freeman’s consent demonstrate vehicle; out pointed the second about independent act of free will was an and the from ve- the inconsistent statements not the detention illegal the of product denied trav- occupants she hicle’s when Here, ... not the although we do view vehicle; and, ultimately eling that with flagrant, the as trooper’s actions record step significantly, most asked her necessary does not the break establish request prior of out the vehicle of events sequence would directive for constituted consent. Such from prior consent isolate Freeman’s pre- authority of than greater show had To contrary, interaction. coercive (other physi- than viously been made supports evidence conclusion that itself). stop of cal Freeman’s vehicle trooper’s of a second sei- initiation Id. Supreme 907. The Court held receipt zure of Freeman’s consent seizure, constituted an these events invalid integrally connected. no sus- trooper reasonable because had Id. at 909. Free- picion activity: of “Even if criminal Freeman, In of Strickler trooper’s question, the wake man’s answer many giv- this has issued decisions contradicting it the information relat- as did Court car, during consent issue of by occupants en other could behavior,” some, totality stops. In we held that arguably be as evasive viewed consent;4 “unpar- proved voluntary no more than an circumstances trooper (vehicle Caban, pas- display weapon, officer’.s cer order 4. See at 131-32 not A.3d did senger’s to search of vehicle that was companion consent car ne- was defendant's exit by his friend owned Iris father driven companion not cessitated fact was voluntary, where was evidence there no was had to move out of licensed driver and driv- abuses, tactics, aggressive police physical seat, maturity er’s or defendant did lack contact, physical any or use restraints time sophistication intellectually in- detention, passenger during the was advised will, exercising capable of free and character leave, initially passenger free detention, investigative the traffic initial search, accept- refused consent to officer . Bell, routine); stop, argument merely but refusal ex- without ed (en banc) (Pa.Super,2005) either plained passenger could (defendant voluntarily to warrant- consented arrive); drug-sniffing dog wait Com- vehicle, less where defendant under- search Kemp, monwealth rights, informed stood of his detective de- all (Pa.Super.2008) (following investigatory valid police’ knew he was fendant voluntarily stop, consented defendant drugs officer observed defen- deliver and that vehicle, though investigating even car, put package floor of dant detective officer inform could did not that he defendant cooperate, search; detective did invited defendant to no refuse to consent there was making statement conduct, not coerce into defendant police physical no contact excessive actions, defendant, defendant, having offi- threats occurred between *11 others, Freeman, Nyugen Moyer, ín in that we consent was determined and interactions between the defendants and involuntary.5 not
officers did
into mere
transform
en-
result,
counters. As a
the officers needed
Freeman, Nyugen
Relying
and
(but lacked) reasonable
to contin-
suspicion
Moyer,
it
Randolph argues that was im
questioning
Here,
ue
in
defendants.
proper
Corporal Hanlon
re-initiate
contrast, Corporal Hanlon’s interaction
advising Randolph
questioning after
n with
Randolph had
become a mere encoun-
of
he was free to
Each
these deci
leave.
ter, making further questioning permissi-
held
consent
sions
the defendant’s
ble. The evidence demonstrates that dur-
invalid,
officer
was
because the
continued
encounter,
ing this mere
Randolph gave
question
despite lacking
the defendant
voluntary consent to
his
search
vehicle.
suspicion
reasonable
to detain the defen The encounter
place
open
took
an
loca-
advising
despite
dant further
the de
and
on public
highway
daylight.
tion
broad
questioning
fendant
he was
leave.
free
was not exceedingly long,
leave,
right
advising
his
waived
to remain silent and to an
ter
driver was free
no
intervening
attorney,
having
ounce of co
admitted
an
circumstances diminished coer-
atmosphere
illegal
cive
of
delivery
particular
detention or
caine for
other-
to female at
loca
search,
consent,
justified
wise
tion,
and at
of
time
signed consent form that
defendant
de
by
vehicle
troopers
was surrounded
two
and
appeared
tective read to him
defendant
while
trooper
just repeated questions
regarding
along,
signing
to read
and before
consent
apologetic
driver’s excessive
and
de-
nervous
form,
spoke
defendant
he
En
confirmed that
meanor);
Moyer,
954 A.2d
glish
drugs
and was not
influence of
or
under
659,
(en banc) (defen-
668-69 (Pa.Super.2008)
alcohol);
(following
By,
Pursuant
is most
erence
warrants
by according ‘great
stances’ test
forth
United
deference’
set
effectuated
determination”).
Gates,
Supreme
magistrate’s
the task
States
Court
experience
“A
officer’s
the vehicle told Trooper
they
Rowland that
Cleveland, Ohio,
fairly
going
regarded
be
as
relevant factor
not Colum-
may
bus.
determining probable cause.” Common
Thompson,
wealth
Corporal Hanlon then
described
officer, however,
An
of Randolph’s
vehicle as follows:
simply
“training
reference
and ex
cannot
I ...
initiated a canine search of the
explanation
abstract from an
perience
During
‘Draco’.
[c]anine
specific
application
their
circum
search, Draco increased his breathing
Id,
“A court cannot
stances
hand.”
sim
area,
the driver’s seat floor
around
but
conclude that
ply
existed
did not indicate. I then
initiated
hand
upon nothing
than the
based
more
number
search of
Tpr.
the vehicle with
Rowland.
years
spent
an officer has
the force.
search,
*13
During the
we
multiple
located
Rather,
the officer
demonstrate
must
phones[,]
cell
of
ringing,
one
which
experience
nexus between his
the
and
no luggage
I
long trip.
[but]
indicate a
to
search, arrest, or
of evidence.” Id.
seizure
then looked
undercarriage
at the
Indeed, a factor
becomes relevant
vehicle
an
observed
aftermarket
and
it
to
because
has some connection
the issue
(sic)
modification between the floor
hand.6Id.
not
did
match
of
the remainder
the un-
dercarriage.
my training
Based
and
case,
obtaining
In this
Randolph’s
after
experience!,],
recognized
I
this modifica-
vehicle, Corpo-
valid consent to search his
tion to
compartment
abe
hidden
com-
ral Hanlon
searched the
and dis-
monly
transport guns, drugs
used to
the box
to
covered
welded
the undercar-
currency. I
U.S..
related this information
riage. Corporal
applied
Hanlon then
to Randolph
noticed a
drastic
to
box.
open
search warrant
the
His affida-
...
change in
Canine Draco is
attitude
probable
of
vit
cause referenced details
by
Pennsylva-
trained
the
and certified
above,
we
have
such as
discussed
the
nia
detect
of
State Police to
the odors
seats, Randolph’s
of rear
inconsis-
absence
cocaine, heroin, marijuana and metham-
tent statements about whom he was visit-
phetamines.
Columbus,
hospital,
ing in the
Ohio
and his
SH,
Exhibit 3.
inability
hospital.
the
name
affidavit
during
duty
also included a detail not mentioned
that we
recognize
have a
examine,
suppression hearing:
passenger
applications
the
in
search warrant
the
juana
persuasive
cigarette,
showing
of
6. We also find
Professor LaFave’s
this
not a
analysis
probable
probable
that a
officér must do more to
the
cause. Under
cause
experience
his
standard,
establish
level of
than make a
possible
explain
it
must 'be
cursory
assertion
its existence and rele-
justify
objective.third party,’
an
arrest to
vance:
.accomplished by
general
this is not
probable
[T]he
cause determination must
hand,
On
expertise.
claim of
the other
if the
officer,
judicial
ultimately
be
made
fully concerning
prior
officer testifies
his
'expert'
is not an
in
who
of law
matters
marijuana cigarettes
experience with
enforcement,
consequently
and ...
it is in-
explains
possible
just
in
how it is
detail
arresting
searching
upon
cumbent
cigarette,
distinguish such a
from other
explain
expertise
officer to
the nature
testimony
cigarettes,
hand-rolled
this
can-
experience
upon
it
and how bears
judge
disregarded by
simply
not be
be-
prompted
officer
which
to arrest
facts
expertise
cause it involves
not shared
example, if an
or search. For
officer at a
judge.
hearing
suppress
a motion to
were
(5th
LaFave,
3.2(c)
§
& Seizure
ed.
Search
say that he made the arrest because he saw
2015).
recognized
expert
what
as an
as a mari-
contain-
compartments
hidden
and not
of common sense
discovered
through the lens
weapons,
long
drugs or
or even how
hypertechnical
grudging,
in the manner
Thus,
construed
a law enforcement officer.
But even when
has been
perfectionists.
troop-
that the
“knowledge
experience”
still
and'
this
we
conclude
his claim
light,
probable
phrase
to tilt
empty
er’s
did
establish
an
that failed
affidavit
Thompson,
the box.
probable
toward
cause.
scales
(officer’s
claim of
A.2d at
“knowl-
the fol-
asserts that
The Commonwealth
give
experience”
rise
edge and
does
(1)
cause:
probable
lowing
created
factors
“explanation of
cause without
luggage
seats
absence
specific application
the circum-
their
multiple cell
vehicle, (2)
discovery of
hand”).
stances
(3) Ran-
ringing,
one which was
phones,
accounts whom he
dolph’s inconsistent
discovery of the
com-
Nor
hidden
did
(4)
Columbus,
inability
visiting
probable cause when
partment establish
driving to in
hospital
name the
he was
the other
conjunction
five
viewed
(5)
Columbus,
claim that
passenger’s
by Corporal
facts
Hanlon. Collec-
observed
instead of
they
driving to Cleveland
were
tively, these
details indicate
(6)
compart-
Columbus,
hidden
occupant
taking
and the other vehicle
undercarriage of
ment
welded
luggage or
lengthy
trip
road
without
*14
vehicle,
Trooper Hanlon claimed
which
vehicle,
in
but
seats
the rear of the
transporting
for
a common device
possession;
in
multiple
phones
cell
their
money.
cannot
drugs, weapons
We
and
they gave
accounts
that
inconsistent
about
finding
Corporal Hanlon for
these
fault
destination;
plans
their travel
and
and
give
not
suspicious,
they
but
rise
facts
did
compart-
that
the vehicle had a hidden
cause.
probable
circumstances,
set of
ment—an unusual
relating to
Corporal
averments
Hanlon’s
warrant,
enough
not
for a
be-
but
compartment
insufficient
the hidden
they
probabili-
not
a “fair
cause
did
create
First,
dog, Dra-
reasons.
for two
that contraband or evidence
crime
ty”
co,
it sniffed the area in
did not alert when
compart-
found
be
inside
would
hidden
dis-
Corporal
subsequently
Hanlon
which
Torres,
Corpo-
ment.
I concur
all of
luggage
val-
no
the
Corporal Hanlon obtained
the vehicle
clusion
removed; and
to search the
officers
Appellant
consent from
rear seats
been
id
stop.
box on
at the scene of the
an
welded
vehicle
observed
aftermarket
from
However,
undercarriage
I
the
respectfully dissent
the
of the
did
Han-
Corporal
Majority’s conclusion
the
of the undercar-
not match
remainder
application
support
view,
the
riage. my
Majority’s
lon’s affidavit
In
the
focus
warrant
establish
for a search
did
level of detail in the recitation
Cor-
the
Instead,
cause.
I would conclude
probable
knowledge,
training,
Hanlon’s
poral
allegations contained within the
the
picture, and
experience
big
misses the
re-
sufficiently
of the
four corners
affidavit
suppres-
weighs the evidence before
cause,
probable
particular,
established
given
I
court.
conclude that
sion
would
to the undercar-
circumstances,
that the steel box welded
totality of
as set forth
these
contain contraband
riage of the van would
affidavit,
suppression
in the
court’s
view,
my
of a crime. In
or evidence
existed that
finding
probable
cause
motion
properly
trial court
denied
or'
of a crime
contraband
would
evidence
Therefore, I
affirm the
suppress.
would
found
box welded
be
steel
judgment
sentence.
supported by
of the
underside
van
654-55,
id. at
record. See
challenge
for a
standard
review
Our
of a
suppression
motion
to a
court’s denial
Furthermore,
constrained
I am
dis-
suppress
determining
“limited
argument
agree
Majority’s
suppression court’s factual
whether
required
demon-
Hanlon was
findings
supported
are
the record and
fact-specific
nexus between his
strate
from
legal
drawn
whether
conclusions
experience
those facts
correct.” Commonwealth
are
scope
analysis
search.
exceeds
Such
649,
Jones,
188,
605 Pa.
re-weigh rath-
attempts
our review and
court’s
suppression
er than review the
de-
cir-
“totality
Pursuant
termination.
See Commonwealth
by the United
cumstances” test set forth
Id. at 655 citation
Here, the affidavit of Appellant passenger
states that concerning
gave inconsistent answers they multiple cell going;
where