*1 A.2d Pennsylvania, Appellee COMMONWEALTH REVERE, Appellant. James Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Oct. 2004.
Decided Dec. *2 Greenlee, Baker, Ellen T. Karl Karl Morgan, Lawrence Philadelphia, for James Revere.
Hugh Burns, Carr, J. Peter Philadelphia, for Com. CAPPY, C.J., CASTILLE, NEWMAN, Before: SAYLOR, BAER, EAKIN and JJ.
OPINION Justice CASTILLE. the propriety to consider limited review granted
This Court an circum exigent recognition Court’s Superior analysis employed cause probable exception stances (1982). A.2d 975 498 Pa. v. follow, circum we hold For the reasons n a short transporting justify police may stances during cause course probable in the absence of distance Ohio, 892 pursuant detention (1968); way, another stated L.Ed.2d S.Ct. exist, a brief where we conclude does not vehicle transportation detention supported an arrest must be constitute automatically affirm. Accordingly, we cause. July charged on was arrested Appellant Act, §§ 6101- Firearms 18 Pa.C.S. of the Uniform violations *3 license, id. a firearm without carrying specifically, or public public firearm on a street carrying § and filed a mo- Appellant § Id. 6108. Philadelphia. in property formed found on the firearm suppress tion to 8 of both Article Section citing the prosecution, the basis for Constitution,1 and the Fourth Amendment Pennsylvania hearing A suppression Constitution.2 the United States J. before the Honorable James February held on III. Fitzgerald, I, provides:
1. Article Section houses, persons, papers and in their people shall be secure The seizures, and and no war- from unreasonable searches possessions things any person shall issue any place to seize or to search or rant be, nearly may describing as nor without them as without cause, by the affiant. by affirmation subscribed to supported oath or I, § 8. Pa. Const. Art. provides: The Amendment Fourth houses, papers, persons, right people in their The to be secure seizures, effects, not be against searches and shall unreasonable and cause, issue, violated, upon probable but and no Warrants shall affirmation, describing particularly and supported Oath or searched, things persons be seized. and the to place to be Const, amend. IV. hearing was testify suppression аt the The sole witness to Mason Broderick Mason. Officer Police Officer Philadelphia 2, 1997, he July a.m. on 9:50 approximately testified the area Selby, patrolling were his Officer Carl partner, and in Philadelphia in North Street around 2500 North Chadwick drug high about the volume received response complaints riding and plainclothes area. The officers were sales on Selby parked After Officer unmarked vehicle. police Street, Officer Mason walked near 17th Huntingdon Street Street, began step sat on a one block over Chadwick thereafter, in.” Shortly to blend reading newspaper, “trying Charles Felder appellant, three Mason observed Officer men— six to seven sitting steps on the an unidentified man — location, Street. at 2509 North Chadwick from his away houses Felder, a clear plastic retrieved A who approached woman and, exchange, from her money from his took baggy pocket, The then walked baggy. from the woman objects her gave gas cap nearby in the of a baggy away placed and Felder automobile. just drug he had witnessed believed that Mason
Officer partner, returned to his The officer transaction.3 in their unmarked vehicle. the area began patrol occurred, the officers the transaction block from where One vehicle, their identified They three men. left the same saw officers, their displayed badges, as themselves and Felder heeded Appellant the men. attempted directives, uniformed the third male ran. Two officers’ but vicinity pursued in the immediate female officers male. fleeing female thereafter, Selby heard the Officers Mason and
Soon *4 that their hollering.” Fearing fellow “screaming officers assistance, Officers need might danger officers be surveillance, seven-year police Mason was a time Officer 3. At the surveillances, as in 50-60 undercover veteran who had been involved Officer Mason also testi- as conducted uniform. well surveillances area,” very large that he had made "a narcotics fied that the area was area, he had in the and that 30 and 40 narcotics arrests between illegal in the area as well. N.T. people possessing firearms arrested 2/2/98, at 13-14. Selby appellant place Mason and instructed and Felder to their hands on their heads and to enter the back of the vehicle.4 The officers not handcuff police appel- unmarked did Felder, they safety lant or nor did frisk them for their before placing them into the vehicle. The officers also did not have their The officers then drove around the block guns drawn. screams, the direction of the female officers’ toward to be the location of the proved approximate prior alleged arrived, drug Selby transaction. When Officers Mason and the female officers them that the screams they informed had heard directed to the unidentified man to himget were 2/2/98, 5-9, but the man had N.T. at 11-19. stop, escaped. thereafter, Immediately appellant officers told and Feld- er to the police exit vehicle and then resumed their Selby detention. performed pat-down Officer Felder, recovering plastic baggy containing thirty- a clear black-tinted, nine small of craсk cocaine. packets During Felder, Selby’s pat-down Officer and before could appellant frisked, Mason noticed appellant shaking right Officer his leg. Officer Mason slide something appellant’s saw down pants leg, thump object ground, heard as the hit the object then kick the discarded police saw under Mason vehicle. Officer looked under the vehicle and recov- loaded, ered a He then handgun. appel- .38-caliber arrested lant. A search incident to arrest yielded United $1105 currency States and three rounds of .38-caliber ammunition Id. 9-10. appellant’s pocket. evidence, At the appellant argued close of that he was vehicle, under arrest once him in the placed arrest, lacked cause to effect that and that the illegal arrest tainted the seizure of subsequent evidence. explained 4. Officer Mason his concern for the female officers as fol- lows: try For their we wanted to make sure that if we could to catch up they apprehended guy nobody got to them if or whatever that not, everything right If hurt. we would have conducted at that location, fast, happened just put guys once we but it so in the car and took off. 2/2/98, N.T. at 16-17. *5 took the motion under advisement and then Judge Fitzgerald 3, 1998, findings on March issued of fact and conclusions of law, in he appellant’s suppress. denied motion to The that, upon court found to be an observing appeared what Felder, illegal drug by police transaction had cause probable Felder, they to arrest but that lacked cause to arrest until the time the from appellant up gun pants leg. fell his However, the court appellant’s presence concluded that Felder, dealer, drug at the scene of the suspected transac- arrest, tion at the scene of gave and Felder’s reason- able, articulable suspicion appellant also be might armed dangerous, such that lawfully perform Terry could stop and frisk for their own The safety. court also found that justified circumstances existed which Officers Mason Selby interrupting Felder, their of appellant and ie., they required “wеre to aid their fellow officers who were attempting Further, apprehend fleeing male.”5 court held under the totality the circumstances— including duration, reasons its transportation, short the short distance of transportation, and the fact that appel- lant not was placement appellant handcuffed —the mere vehicle not did convert the investigative detention into an firearm, arrest. With respect seizure of the court found that once the firearm fell appellant’s pants leg, police him; had probable cause to arrest the subsequent search of appellant and the seizure of ammunition and curren- cy therefore were as an lawful incident to that arrest. art, “exigent
5. The term
circumstances” has become a term of
generally
orderly process
describes a situation
yield
where a more
must
urgent necessity
to an
example,
for immediate action. For
this Court
has defined
circumstances to include situations where there is a
protect
preserve
"need to
injury,”
life or avoid serious
Common-
34,
(1999) (Castille, J.,
Wright,
wealth v.
560 Pa.
742 A.2d
concurring
ists,”
dissenting),
threatening
emergency
"where a life
ex-
Gribble,
Commonwealth v.
550 Pa.
703 A.2d
435 n. 18
Maxwell,
(citing Commonwealth v.
505 Pa.
On
Lovette for the
citing
opinion,
memorandum
unpublished
into a
suspect
a
“[p]laeing
that
bright-line proposition
is
him to the scene of the offense
transport
in
to
order
vehicle
which, in
cause”
supported by probable
must be
an arrest and
However, the
ease,
transport.
at the time of
lacking
this
was
its order. On
reconsidered and vacated
subsequently
panel
a
2-1 decision
published,
issued
panel
Nоvember
v.
of sentence. Commonwealth
judgment
affirmed the
Revere,
(Pa.Super.2002).
The panel new Olszewski, found that the circumstances Peter Paul Honorable discovery prior detention surrounding appellant’s investigatory of an detention. not exceed the limits gun did dura- that those circumstances —brief majority The reasoned restraints, of trans- tion, force, and the short distance no no the coercive that the detention “avoided portation —revealed Revere, 814 A.2d at an arrest.” associated with characteristics officers Thus, required concluded that the majority and transpor- to their seizure suspicion justify only reasonable then determined that majority The appellant. tation Felder because of the suspicion to officers had reasonable him had observed they transaction believed narcotics conduct; and, there also authority, under was Superior as he was Felder’s stop appellant suspicion reasonable Kearney, (citing Id. at 201 companion. (1992) (“When a person 601 A.2d Pa.Super. crime, suspi- а a reasonable committing suspected presently involved, though is also even companion that his develops cion in the com- being action only suspicious was companion’s pany suspect.”)). that this rejected appellant’s argument majority
The
also
finding
a
that he was
compelled
in Lovette
decision
Court’s
in the
vehicle
placed
once he
under arrest
view,
“misread” Lo-
majority’s
In the
transported.
“clearly
Lovette
a
se rule.
establishing
per
vette as
such
justified, placing
an action is
that when such
indicates
him to the
transport
in order
suspect
into
vehicle
by probable
not
supported
not an arrest and need
be
scene is
Revere,
majority recognized
The
Officers man. To have pursued the officers who unidentified ignored complete these screams order stop required and Felder would have Officers the calls of their fellow Selby ignored and Mason to have and Mason Selby officers. Officers would Alternatively, investigation respond have had to abandon their choices, seems, language shouts. it are those that the Such As making. in Lovette was intended to to avoid allow such, support suppression the facts the record court’s present prior that circumstances finding were in the appellant being transported police vehicle. A. Del filed a Judge Joseph
Id. at 201. President
Sole
statement,
noting his view that Lovette
dissenting
briefly
Id. at 201-02.
“requires
different result.”
Court,
in this
which was
Appellant
further review
sought
of,
the Superior
but limited to the
granted,
“[w]hether
issue
exception
erred in
reading
Court
announced
this Court
probable
requiremеnt
into the
cause
Revere,
Commonwealth v.
575 Pa.
835 A.2d
[Lovette].”
curiam).
(per
takes an absolutist
on the
Appellant
position
narrow
review,
that
question accepted
arguing
placing
act
him
transporting
him in the
one block
vehicle
arrest,
Terry stop
exceeded the
of a
and constituted an
scope
only
supported by probable
that such arrests are
if
lawful
cause,
here,
the time of the transportation
proba
Terry
Appellant
ble cause did not exist.6
notes that
Hicks,
(1969),
Commonwealth v.
434 Pa.
271 contends that action here went too far Appellant alia, inter because, Terry one of officers theoretical- under ly stayed could have with and Felder the other while respond officer drove to the concern away respecting female officers. The officers’ choice of the more intrusive moment, even in the though alternative made heat view, arrest, transformed the encounter into an appellant’s triggering thus cause no exi- requirement which and not the gency, certainly exigency by identified the Com- here, could excuse.8 monwealth
The Commonwealth advocates a more
approach
flexible
accompany Terry
transportations
arguing
stops,
the police may change
the site of an
detention
such a
is a reasonable
response
security
when
movement
concerns. The Commonwealth
asserts
lаw
enforcement officers
are faced
exigent
who
circumstances
during Terry stop
not
required
should
to choose between
Appellant complicates
argument by
rephrasing
his
the issue and
additional,
(1)
interweaving
legal challenges, including:
distinct
Lawson,
validity
police stop
light
of the initial
Commonwealth
23,
(1973),
Banks,
453,
454 Pa.
purposes reviewing /exigent question the Lovette review, granted accept which was Superior we the conclusions of the suspicion Court that the stop, officers had reasonable to conduct a and also that circumstances existed. See Commonwealth v. Mack, (2002); 568 Pa. City 796 A.2d 970 n. 3 School Dist. of Inc., Design Development, Scranton v. Dale and Dale 559 Pa. (1999). 741 A.2d 189 n. 2 *9 safety the of police at either cost investigation their continuing to flee. allowing suspects or security of permissibility that the also submits The Commonwealth suspects during Terry of movements reasonably necessary exigent necessitated in movements particular stops, circumstances, this Court recognized by implicitly was Court, the rejecting the Lovette This is so because Lovette. there should that the encounter argument government’s noted Terry stop, confines of a the falling as within viewed of of a transportation element that, the added we have “[h]ere initial encounter without the place suspects support action.” to exigеnt circumstances added). reads The Commonwealth (emphasis at A.2d suggesting as qualifier circumstances exigent Lovette’s transporta- present, indeed are circumstances exigent where take the encounter automatically not does tion of realm of an arrest. and into the Terry the confines of outside distinguish- that this case is argues also The Commonwealth real, not here exigency because the from Lovette able investigat- police i.e., a matter of convenience merely — detaining practical option not have the officers did ing encounter, not move initial and did the site of the suspects but were investigation, their instead part as suspects their they fact that heard fellow responding promptly that the Su- argues The Commonwealth screaming. officers circum- found that properly here perior Court intended to allow in Lovette was language stances jeopardizing potentially a choice between making avoid suspects go crime allowing officers or of their fellow lives investigation. free without qualifier invoking
In addition
notes that
this
the Commonwealth
opinion,
in the Lovette
(as
numerous other
well as
Supreme
the U.S.
Court and
courts)
police moving
approved
have
state and federal
to main-
in order
Terry stop
the course of
during
suspects
security
to ensure
quo
the status
tain
The
ar-
officers.9
or their fellow
themselves
alia,
cites,
assertion,
inter
the Commonwealth
support of this
In
(1985),
Florida,
In
a
officer
in a
house noticed
property
of men
stolen
vacant
report
with
The
nearby
of a
home.
apparent burglary
of the
evidence
home as the officer
burglarized premises
arrived
owner
had
premises
informed him that
the
investigating
and
The officer noticed
morning.
been secured when he left that
the
muddy footprints
plot
ground
trail of
on
between
some of the
premises and the vacant house where
burglarized
area
patrolled
had been taken. The officer
the
goods
stolen
and half from the scene of
and saw three males a block
men
his attention because of
mud
burglary;
attracted
the trio and asked for
stopped
on their shoes. The officer
identification,
none could
The officer decided
produce.
which
home,
the trio back to the
victim’s
and
transport
burglary
pat
of that
conducted
down
anticipation
transportation,
ring
and a valuable silver dimе
produced
searches which
companions. Following transport,
from one of the appellant’s
property,
as his
as
ring
the victim identified the
dime
(1983)
Royer,
Florida v.
460 U.S.
Following Lovette’s
affirmance
review,
of his
on
this
granted
conviction
direct
further
alia,
consider,
legality
review to
inter
encoun-
ter
produced
identification of the stolen
victim’s
goods.
posed
being,
the issue as
“whether placing appel-
We
vehicle,
lant in a
after a
‘pat down’ search and trans-
him to the scene of the
porting
burglary constituted
then
arrest.” The Court
stated
all of the
“[u]nder
circumstances, it
placing
is clear that the
and his
companions
purpose
transport-
vehicle fоr the
offense,
consent,
ing them to the scene of the
their
without
constituted an
as that term has been
arrest
defined under our
statement,
Despite
cases.”
this rather
initial
the Lo-
broad
vette Court
recognized
urging
Commonwealth was
*11
in
that the seizure
this case
a constitutionally permissible
was
Terry stop, notwithstanding the traditional definition of an
Notably,
reject
arrest.
the Lovette
did not
this argu-
Court
rather,
hand;
ment out of
the Court concluded that
seizure at
issue did not
a departure”
“warrant
from the
Lovette,
approach.
traditional
The Lovette Court to some to it length explain why went First, rejected the argument regard. Commonwealth’s this the Court traced the evolution of the to Terry exception general requirement probable cause. The Court stressed Terry indeed an that it exception was should not be in a extended fashion would cause probable swallow rule. The rejected Court con- argument Commonwealth’s cerning the to criminal utility investigations approving cause, seizures less than that thé upon probable noting Court obliged wаs balance the character of the intrusion particular justification against proffered and that the facts at bar clearly were not “so within the as to exception warrant a deviation” from the cause rule. The fact that the for investigative purposes seizure was rather than to arrest and charge dispositive was not alone of the question of Fourth Amendment reasonableness. Id. at 979- 80. The then explained why, at some on the length specific record it “not presented persuaded” was departure that a from the probable cause requirement appropriate:
The Terry exception has been most frequently applied involving instances merely Here involuntary detention. have the added element we of a of the transportation suspects from the place initial encounter without support that action. The police option had the of detaining suspects at the site initial encounter and either bringing the complainant site for his identification of the questioned taking articles оr those items to him. Either situation present would much stronger case for the position the presently urges. The Commonwealth stresses the limited area tra- versed transportation appellant. fact only This highlights the ease with which the identification could have been made without the movement of the suspects, which increased the intrusiveness of the encounter. The instant factual situation is also illustrative of the uncertainties at- any tendant to attempt expand the Terry exception reinforces the wisdom scrupulously adhering to the nar- scope row of the exception. (citations omitted)
Id. added). at 980 (emphasis We do not read the Lovette Court’s analysis as purporting establish, as favoring, even a bright-line rule that exigent circumstances can never warrant the transportation of a sus- pect during Terry investigative detention. To the contrary, although the Lovette Court strongly reaffirmed the primacy of *12 the probable cause requirement issue, when an arrest is at and also that recognized the movement of a suspect necessari- ly the encounter,” “increase[s] intrusiveness of the it consid- ered the argument proffered by the Commonwealth that the seizure there still could be squared principles Terry. Ultimately, rejection the of the Terry argu- Commonwealth’s ment not terms, was articulated absolute but instead terms tied to the specific facts of the case: there no was
276 that manners in which less intrusive and there were
exigency,
out,
been carried
detention could have
investigative
particular
i.e.,
transported the victim
just
easily
as
have
the
could
police
goods,
identify
to
to the scene of
burglary
(but not the sus-
goods
transported
have
or
could
for identification.10
to the victim
pects)
authority
Amendment
of Fourth
overwhelming weight
The
Terry
in the conduct of
investi-
flexibility
degree
a
supports
may
it
detentions,
a
that
including
recognition
gative
course of such a
suspect during
a
move
appropriate
that
there is
First,
is correct
the Commonwealth
detention.
Supreme
post-dating
U.S.
language
opinions
in Lovette
suggest-
language
there is
just as
itself —
Lovette —
justify moving a
may
concerns
security
ing
sаfety
that
Hayes,
detention. See
470
an
during
suspect
(removal
n. 3
to station
at 1647
at
n.
105 S.Ct.
3,
U.S.
817
fingerprinting
investigative detention
house to conduct
cause; noting ab-
of probable
absence
purposes unlawful
circumstances);
Royer,
460 103
exigent
sence of
(“there
reasons of
undoubtedly
at 1328
are
S.Ct.
location
from one
justify moving
suspect
that would
security
detention”). Various feder-
an
during
investigatory
another
only
which have
tribunals
in this matter are not
The lower courts
categorical ban on
purport to establish a
recognized that Lovette did not
Gwynn,
during
stop. See
723
suspect
transportation of
patrol
suspect
placed in
car
(Terry stop
where
at 149
lawful
A.2d
escape;
actions "constitut
after he tried to
and then handcuffed
quo
con
while the officer
permissible preservation of the status
ed
Pine,
v.
370
dissipated
suspicions”); Commonwealth
his
firmed or
(1988) (under
placing the
Pa.Super.
A.2d
815
him,
transport
either
absent
vehicle in order
"defendant in
circumstances,
exigent
to the scene
the defendant's consent
objects
complainant
view the
in the defen
could
so that
offense
probable
illegal arrest without
an
possession,
dant's
causefj”);
constituted
White,
Pa.Super.
A.2d
(Lovette
"in a
provided
placing
a defendant
offense,
[his]
of an
without
transporting
to the scene
[him]
vehicle and
circumstances,
illegal
an
arrest
constituted
and without
consent
cause[.]”);
Philadelphia,
City
Whitmill v.
without
U.S.M.J.) ("state
(E.D.Pa.1998) (Hart,
permit[s]
law
F.Supp.2d
justify
existf]
transportation of a
if
any transportation
rejecting
con
transportation;”
contention
such
Lovette).
arrest) (construing
stitutes
*13
277
recognized
have
Appeals
of
likewise
al Circuit Courts
of
the movement
prohibits
fast rule which
there is no hard and
detention; rath-
investigative
of an
during the course
suspects
where
er,
particularly
exist—and
where
security concerns—such
exigency
involves
and/or
Many
progeny.11
and its
compatible
is
movement
circum-
that exigent
recognized
states also have
of our sister
an
the course of
during
moving suspect
a
may
stances
warrant
Furthermore,
some courts
even
detention.12
$109,179
See,
Currency, 228
States
e.g.,
v.
in United
United States
11.
1080,
Cir.2000) ("Neither
(9th
handcuffing
suspect nor
1085
F.3d
relocating
arrest
automatically
detention into an
suspect
turns a
security pur-
reasonably
safety and
taken for
where these actions are
Cir.1998) (“Mov-
680,
(9th
Baird, 146 F.3d
685
poses."); Halvorsen v.
automatically turn
ing
another does not
suspect
from one location to
arrest,
security justify
safety and
where reasons of
a detention into an
1548,
(10th
Soto,
moving
v.
988 F.2d
1558
person.”);
United States
circumstances,
Cir.1993) (“Absent
detaining officer
once the
stop, the line between
from the site of the initial
removes
detainee
crossed,
been
and the
investigative detention and custodial arrest has
cause.”);
City
v.
supported
probable
Eberle
transfer must have been
Anaheim,
814,
Cir.1990) ("reasons
(9th
safety and
of
901 F.2d
819
of
security
moving
to another
justify
...
from one location
Pino,
detention”);
v.
855 F.2d
during
357,
investigatory
an
United States
(6th Cir.1988)
stopped
violation to
(directing suspect
for traffic
362
justified by safely
nearby overpass proper
concerns
drive to
because
setting
as
such
and movement was not to more institutional
Vanichromanee,
room);
interrogation
v.
742
or
United States
station
“[fjhat
340,
(7th Cir.1984) (when
security
safety,
purpose
or
F.2d
345
temporary
another
spot
detention to
the three were moved from one
of
investigatory
stop”);
States v.
vitiate
nature of the
United
did not
White,
29,
(D.C.Cir.1981) ("Courts
routinely allowed
have
648 F.2d
37
changes
carrying out a
of location when
officers to insist on reasonable
exigencies
determine what
Terry stop.... The
of the circumstances
situation!/]”).
given
in a
moves are reasonable
1185, 1192,
See,
Cal.Rptr.
90
e.g., People Courtney, Cal.App.3d
11
v.
(reasonable
suspects
station
(Cal.Ct.App.1970)
to move
370
"fcjertainly
no Fourth
because
there was
order to avoid hostile crowd
on-the-spot
compulsion
to choose between
Amendment
on
of their own
investigation
cost
continuation of their
Vena,
Ill.App.3d
investigation”); People
safety,
abandoning
v.
582,
886,
(1984)
154,
(transportation 77 Ill.Dec.
460 N.E.2d
Terry stop in
beyond
permissible and not
bounds
detainee to station
action);
Com
extraordinary
where that is safest course
situations
Blais,
316-17
Mass.
701 N.E.2d
monwealth v.
alleged
administer
(safety
moving
drunk driver to
reasоns warrant
Commonwealth, 41,
test);
Va.App.
585 S.E.2d
sobriety
Hunt v.
(
complex
property
office
(moving suspect
apartment
disapproved
Terry-based
which have
on
transportations
specific
did,
facts
suggested,
forwarded have
as Lovette
might
result
be different
if an exigency existed. For
Harris,
example, People
124 Cal.Rptr.
Cal.3d
*14
(1975),
[*] [*] [*] canWe conceive of factual it might situations which quite reasonable to transport suspect to the crime scene If, for possible identification. for the example, victim of an assault or other injured serious offense was or otherwise physically unable to be promptly taken suspect, view the [sic], or a witness similarly uncapacitated was and the warranted reasonable the suspicion offender, suspect indeed the detention “transport” might upheld. Similarly, well be the surrounding circum- may stances reasonably indicate that it would be less of an upon intrusion him suspect’s rights convey speedily a scene, few blocks to the crime permitting suspect’s early release rather than prolonging unduly field detention. arrest); Lund, safety purposes stop did not convert into State Wash.App. (moving 853 P.2d person 1385-87 from jailhouse nearby purposes safety, visitor area "was reasonable for convenience, security permissible scope and it did not exceed State, Terry stop”); (Wyo.2003) Eckenrod v. 67 P.3d 641-42 (forcibly moving suspect across street for officer and arrest; suspect was reasonable and did not turn into "the Fourth investigating Amendment not does mandate that an officer choose continuing investigation between personal safety at the risk ”). abandoning investigation!)] his (or state) This Court’s research no has shown federal cases to the i.e., contrary, setting prohibits no case forth a hard and fast rule which suspects during the movement of the course of an deten- tion, where circumstances exist. Ordinarily there exist less and more intrusive reasonable pre-arrest alternatives to transportation. may The officers call or escort witness to detention scene for an viewing immediate or if are suspect, able to procure satisfactory identification the suspect, ar- rangements may be made for a subsequent confrontation addition, with the In witness. the consent of bemay sought.
[*] [*] [*] case, In the instant pursued officers none of these Instead, procedures. alternative they handcuffed the sus- pects conveyed them to the home. Without [victims’] arrest and in the absence of an exigency, the initial deten- tion was continued by means of transportation followed further interrogation. Under the facts of this case the procedures officers’ violated defendant’s constitutional *15 rights.
Id. at 635-36.13
another
Finally,
common circumstance where
courts have deemed police action consistent
814, 816,
1646, 1647;
Hayes,
13. Accord
Royer,
when i.e., identification, as to immedi- so show-up of a for purposes suspect that the suspicion reasonable dispel confirm or ately reported in a crime.14 recently was involved arrest.) (citations thirty an minutes constituted police officers for over ("[T]he State, 6, (Del.1993) omitted); presence of 631 A.2d 12 Hicks v. security The officer interests. ... no substantial the crowd alone raised words, threatening or other intimidation from repotted acts no of thе initial ... removal of Hicks from scene crowd[J [T]he small investigation requiring proba- a the detention into seizure transformed cause.”). ble 987, (9th See, Angeles, 991 Gallegos City Los 308 F.3d e.g., v. ("For Gallegos Cir.2002) guns ordering from the police their to draw car, truck, patrol Gallegos a handcuff in the back of ... for to not, bring ... was under scene] him back to [the ... and for to circumstances, finding Gallegos way out if unreasonable Short, for.”); looking v. 570 F.2d person were United States ("Pursuant 1051, (D.C.Cir.1978) Terry stop the to officer [a ] 1054-55 burglary nearby appellant scene of the to take the was free identification, given the would have and such an identification possible omitted); arrest.”) (footnote United probable cause for officer denied, 62, (D.C.Cir.1977), 435 U.S. Wylie, 70 cert. v. 569 F.2d States 1527, (1978) 944, ("[Returning appellant to 542 98 S.Ct. 55 L.Ed.2d crime, few feet from where he and the suspected scene standing, investigation after which for a brief officer were story go checked out ... was a reasonable free to if his would be circumstances[.]”); suspicious investigating the State procedure for denied, 187, 1168; (1987) Mitchell, 484 A.2d 1173 cert. 204 Conn. suspeсts (transporting 108 S.Ct. 98 L.Ed.2d located, proper "pursue a means of hospital, where victim was likely dispel suspicions confirm or their investigation that was 1984) ("In State, (Del. A.2d quickly”); Buckingham v. committed, that a crime has been where it is known cases by eyewitnesses, unless such may in order to be viewed be detained States, detention."); unduly Speight v. United prolong the travel would denied, (D.C.1996), 519 U.S. cert. 671 A.2d (1996) (“Pursuant Terry stop police also to a lawful 136 L.Ed.2d nearby show-up crime scene for may transport an individual to *16 171, 819, identification.”); 432 People Lippert, 89 Ill.2d 59 Ill.Dec. v. 92, denied, 841, 605, (1982) U.S. 103 S.Ct. 74 cert. 459 N.E.2d 609-10 ("[W]e (1982) transportation ... of the defen consider the L.Ed.2d 85 showup purposes of a to have involved here for dant the short distance Barros, investigatory procedure.”); v. legitimate been 849, 572, (1997) (suspect’s brief detention 859 Mass. 682 N.E.2d 425 part transport by necessity him to scene is reasonable occasioned Hicks, 234, N.Y.S.2d investigatory stop); People v. 68 N.Y.2d 508 an 861, (1986) ("The 163, including detention nonarrest 865 500 N.E.2d within the bounds of to the crime scene was transportation of defendant Wheeler, 230, 737 investigatory stop.”); State v. 108 Wash.2d a lawful 1005, (1987) under (permissiblе and not excessive 1007-08 P.2d
281 authority, we significant of this Upon consideration equate that would and fast rule that a hard persuaded are him with transporting in a vehicle placing instances, cause, would in all arrest requiring an the Fourth Both Terry.15 view of arbitrarily an crabbed citizens I, to protect 8 serve Amendment and Article Section D.M., In re 781 seizures. searches and against unreasonable has (Pa.2001). Indeed, Supreme Court at 1163 U.S. A.2d the “touchstone” requirement” that the “central explained v. is reasonableness. Illinois the Fourth Amendment 949, 946, L.Ed.2d McArthur, 326, 330, 121 148 531 S.Ct. U.S. 417, Robinette, 33, 39, (2001); 519 v. U.S. 838 Ohio (1996). ... mea 421, L.Ed.2d “Reasonableness 136 347 totality objective by examining terms sured consistently In this test have applying circumstances. we rules, fact-spe instead bright-line emphasizing eschewed Robinette, 519 inquiry.” of the reasonableness cific nature Cortez, 421; 39, States v. 117 S.Ct. at see also United U.S. 417-18, 690, 695, 621 66 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. U.S. (1981). Moreover, has “rea High emphasized him, him, burglary place him in suspect, to hold frisk handcuff crime). v.
patrol
transport him scene of
But see State
car and
Crowder,
(1980) (defendant
Haw.App.
deemed
613 P.2d
into hotel where theft occurred
to bе arrested when taken
street
briefly questioned
found and not free to
because defendant not
where
leave);
People Bloyd,
416 Mich.
331 N.W.2d
seized, detained,
(defendant
ques-
deemed to be arrested when he was
investigating
transported by police
potential
tioned and
who were
break-in);
Guzman,
(R.I.2000) (“[Wjhen
752 A.2d
Officer
State v.
street, placed
him in her locked
Telia seized Guzman on the
cruiser,
transported
him to the
scene for identification
then
murder
law.”).
purposes,
as a matter of
she arrested Guzman
binding authority
explicit,
are
no
from the
15. We
aware that there is
holding today;
Supreme
requires
that the views
Court which
our
Courts,
courts,
bind
Circuit
other state
and commentators do not
us;
judgment upon
independent
and that
our own
we must exercise
Nevertheless,
presented.
preponderance of
question
the fact that the
authority
flexibility
significant.
weighs in this instance is
favor
Glass,
(Pa.2000) ("[WJhere the
See Commonwealth v.
United States 470 U.S. (1985) (citations 1575-76, 84 quotations L.Ed.2d omit- ted).
We hold that there are certain exigencies partic —and ularly, the need for security conducting completing investigative an detention —the existence of which would make it reasonable under the authority Terry and place Hicks a vehicle and him a short transport during distance an detention. The reasonable ness the additional intrusion must be measured circumstances, i.e., totality exigency and the attend ing exigency. Properly caused under stood, recognition may that such trans exigencies warrant an portation during investigative detention does not exist as separate some rule that “exception” general probable arrest; necessary justify cause is are not replacing we multi-factor, salutary cause test new Rather, balancing allowing totality test. courts to engage of the circumstances analysis which accounts for exigencies arising during an investigative detention is a function of the underlying reasonableness that must exist any to justify *18 which, definition, stop, stops are less intrusive than formal arrests. Viewing transportation suspect as some auto- matic disqualifying factor imposes rigidity which not does square the practical realities powered which exception. Accordingly, Superior in did not err that holding exigent circumstances transporta- could warrant tion of a suspect during Terry stop. above,
Finally, seek, as we have noted appellant did not we did not accept, any question review concerning whether sufficient in exigent circumstances fact existed this case so justify as to deferring completion of the Terry stop, placing car, appellant police him a transporting single block. It note, however, important the factual circumstances here pertaining to exigent circumstances are materially Lovette, distinct from those presented so that the Superior Court decision cannot be said to сonflict with Lovette. The purpose transportation this was not a matter of conven- ience to police as they presented possible stolen goods to a burglary victim for identification. Police here articulated a specific reason, and particularized in safety based concerns for their fellow officers given who had chase to a suspect, third why they believed it necessary interrupt investiga- tive detention and freeze the circumstances by taking appel- lant and his companion along they while investigated the shouts of Moreover, their fellow officers. unlike in down, here did not pat appellant or anything seize him, prior to the emergency decision to transport him as they responded to the shouts. Once the police ascertained that the safe, other officers were immediately resumed com- pleted their detention.16 Dunaway, 16. We note 1hat 442 U.S. 60 L.Ed.2d support which cites in of the inflexible rule he would have adopt, support this Court merely does not transporting notion that suspect necessarily Terry stop transforms a into a full-blown arrest. In Dunaway, vehicle, was taken from his home in a transported placed interrogation station and in an room reasons, affirm the order we foregoing For the Superior Court. join and EAKIN and Justice SAYLOR NEWMAN
Justice opinion. in the consideration not participate NIGRO did Justice case. of this decision concurring opinion files CAPPY
Chief Justice joins. BAER Justice CAPPY, Concurring.
Chief Justice
I
appeal.
limited facts in this
under the
majority
I
join
first,
however,
emphasize
reasons:
two
separately,
write
second,
clarify
holding;
of our
scope
the limited
to exigent
police response
the nature of the
consideration
re-
analysis
component of
significant
is a
of a detainee.
for the relocation
justification
garding
*19
circumstances
exigent
holds that “where
our Court
Today
vehicle
police
a
exist,
transportation
and
a brief detention
must be
constitute an arrest which
automatically
does not
at
Majority Opinion
cause.”
supported by probable
Fourth Amendment
explains,
majority
As the
A.2d at 696.
of elas
degree
limited
embrаced a certain
has
jurisprudence
Ohio,
stop, Terry
Terry
a
scope
to the
of
respect
ticity (1968),
and has
That extremely of itself an Terry pursuant detention mandate that seizure to the constitutional exception limited Common- cause is unlawful. our citizens without (1992); 62, 614 A.2d 532 Pa. Rodriquez, wealth v. placed 1868. Properly Terry, see also extraordinary situations which perspective, in this for a a citizen justified only seizing be in not may officers intruding upon but also further pursuant Terry, period in police vehicle by placing person freedom individual’s locale, him to a different transporting his will against rare. exceedingly necessarily will
Second,
analysis
that the
of whether
clarify
I wish to
of a
justifies
placing
exigent
existence of
him a
transporting
in a
short
police vehicle
detainee
detention includes a reason-
during
distance
and as
say,
That is
ably necessary response сomponent.
brief,
its
the addi-
throughout
urged by
in a
by placement
on a citizen’s freedom
tional intrusion
re-
reasonably necessary
relocation
be a
must
vehicle
scope
it
circumstances or will exceed
sponse
de
arrest.
and constitute an unconstitutional
facto
If,
case,
circumstances is
concept
as in this
officers,
this
potential
danger
as the
lor
fellow
understood
approach
that the
under
Appellant
James Revere makes no claim
*20
I,
Pennsylvania
than
Section 8 of the
Constitution
different
Article
Constitution,
the Fourth Amendment to the United States
that under
thus,
analysis.
similarity
legal
majority properly presumes
in
and
the
6,
Majority Opinion
n.
286
exigency automatically justify does not the relocation of an Rather, proper analysis the consist of both a individual. will (as- exigent determination exist whether the purposes appeal), sumed for this and whether officers’ necessary conduct to the reasonably response totality circumstances based the of the circumstances.2 upon 20, 88 1868 that Terry, (offering S.Ct. Cf. justi- is “a dual inquiry one —whether officer’s action was reasonably fied at its and it was related in inception, whether justified to the the interference in scope circumstances which in place.”).3 upon present first Based the limited facts this join I appeal, majority concluding that reasonably necessary response officers’ conduct was a to the safety circumstances of concern for the of their fellow officers, thus, not constitute an did arrest. joins BAER this concurring opinion.
Justice
agree
majority
performing
inquiry, reviewing
2.
I
with the
this
appreciate
acting
dangerous
courts must
are often
reviewing
engage
fluid
and that
situations
courts should not
unrealis-
second-guessing.
reasonably
tic
Consideration of
alterna-
less intrusive
part
inquiry
tives should be
of the relevant
and serves to balance the
See, e.g.,
concerns of citizens and law enforcement officers.
Common-
(1982) ("The police
wealth v.
Pa.
450 A.2d
option
detaining
suspects
had the
at the site of the initial
bringing
complainant
encounter and either
site
his
questioned
taking
identification of the
articles or
those
to him.
items
present
stronger
position
Either situation would
a much
case for the
Harris,
presently urges.”); People
15 Cal.3d
Cal.Rptr.
(1975)(explaining
usually
P.2d
less
pre-arrest
intrusive and more reasonable alternatives exist to
relocation
noting
pursued
procedures);
that officers
none
alternative
491, 504-06,
Royer,
Florida v.
460 U.S.