Case Information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ^[1] IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

NATHAN COX

Appellant No. 2245 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 20, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011616-2015 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., SOLANO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* FILED MAY 08, 2017

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: Nathan appeals judgment of sentence, entered Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, after the Honorable Paul Penepinto found him guilty of multiple drug offenses'. After careful review, affirm.

The trial court set forth the facts of case follows: At the hearing [Cox's] motion to suppress, Police Officer October 30, 2015, at Joseph approximately 8:30 p.m., tour duty took him and his partner, Officer Grant to the location of 1227 Chancellor Street city county of Philadelphia. officers went that * Former Justice specially assigned the Superior Court.

' Possession with Intent Deliver (PWID), P.S. § 780-113(a)(32), Knowing Intentional (K/I) Possession of Controlled Substances, P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

location both narcotics enforcement and because that particular corridor of Chancellor high crime area.

Officer Ferrero testified that turned onto the 1200 block of Chancellor at approximately 8:35 p.m., in unmarked police car. Furthermore, Officer Ferrero testified that when turned down Chancellor Street observed Appellant standing in the middle of the street, with another male, later identified as James Taylor, and [Taylor] handed Appellant denominations United States currency. At that time[,] Appellant placed United States currency his right cargo pants pocket and then retrieved pill bottle from pocket. Appellant, using pinching motion, then handed small objects [Taylor]. [Taylor] and [Cox] looked the direction of the officers and both parties began walk away. Shortly thereafter, Officer Ferrero stopped Taylor and Officer Grant stopped [Cox]. In Taylor's left hand was small rock of off-white chunky substance alleged crack cocaine and placed on property receipt number 3212913. Also recovered from Taylor was glass crack pipe, placed on property receipt number 3212910. Also recovered from the same right cargo pants pocket where Officer Ferrero observed [Cox], [Officer Ferrero] recovered $167 dollars United States Currency, placed property receipt number 3212910. Also, recovered same right cargo pants pocket where Officer [Cox][] both retrieve place pill bottle back into[] was amber pill bottle containing thirty-two peach colored pills later identified alprazolam, schedule IV narcotic, one off-white chunky small rock, alleged to be crack cocaine, and on red and yellow jar, both containing green weedy substance, alleged marijuana. Officer Ferrero turned down Chancellor Street, his vantage point [Cox] was through the windshield of his

vehicle and he had profile of [Cox's] right side and [Taylor's] left side. addition, headlights were turned on and are lights 1200 block of conversation between Appellant [Taylor]. has been officer for twenty-one years in 6th district part of the Narcotics Enforcement team, and

also part of the vice enforcement team since He been involved over fifty arrests narcotics, robbery, assault, prostitution block of Chancellor Street since Based on his experience with part of Chancellor Street being crime observation from the interaction between

- - [Cox] [Taylor], specifically [Cox's] pinching motion to [Taylor's] open hand, Ferrero believed [Cox] was engaged illegal narcotics transaction. testified he has previously observed pinching motion during time working the [sixth] district. More specifically, Officer 'probably every time' the past he the pinching motion used by [Cox] he has narcotics arrest.

Trial Court Opinion, at 2-4 (N.T. citations omitted).

On May 25, 2016, following waiver trial, the trial court found Cox guilty all charges. trial court imposed sentence of fifteen to thirty months' imprisonment two years' reporting probation. Cox filed timely appeal, and on July 18, 2016, filed court -ordered concise statement errors complained of appeal pursuant Rule 1925(b) of Pa.R.A.P. On October 20, 2016, Cox filed supplemental statement of errors. On appeal, claims:

Did not below err denying [Cox's] motion to suppress physical evidence recovered from [Cox's] pocket, where the [Officer Ferrero] came upon [Cox] handing [Taylor] objects after [Cox] accepted money, but where insufficient nexus was established between the [Officer Ferrero's] would give rise to probable under the of the circumstances? Brief of Appellant, at

In reviewing challenge the suppression court's denial of motion suppress, we apply the following standard of review: Where the defendant challenges adverse ruling of the suppression court, we will consider only the evidence prosecution whatever evidence defense which is uncontradicted record whole; if support on the record, are bound by the facts found by

- 3 - suppression court, may reverse court only if the legal conclusions drawn from these facts are erroneous. Moreover, even if the suppression court did err in its legal conclusions, the reviewing court my nevertheless affirm its are other legitimate grounds decision where admissibility challenged evidence.

Commonwealth v. O'Shea, 567 A.2d 1023, 1028 (Pa. 1989) (citations omitted). addressing challenges denial of suppression motion, this Court must view the evidence light favorable Commonwealth, the prevailing party. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 907 A.2d 540, 542 (Pa. Super. 2006). claims the by did not meet the requirements probable cause set forth in Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d (Pa. 2009). We disagree. Judge Penepinto correctly denied Cox's suppression motion.

Probable cause justifying warrantless arrest determined by of the circumstances. See Commonwealth v. El, 933 A.2d 657 Super. 2007). suppression may regard officer's experience relevant factor determining probable arrest. Id. However, suppression court "cannot simply conclude probable cause existed based upon nothing more than the number of years officer has spent the force; rather, the officer must demonstrate nexus between search." at 935. addition officer's experience, additional factors the trial court may consider include: (1) officer's close knowledge of the designated crime area; (2) specific knowledge about drug sales, packaging hand-to-hand drug exchanges on street; and (3) his ability connect activity in question to past and arrest for similar conduct. at 936 ("[E]vidence at the suppression hearing established that [the officer] was a nine-year veteran of the force who was on undercover patrol in high crime area . . [the officer] was personally familiar with . heroin sales activity in the neighborhood, heroin packaging, hand-to- hand drug exchanges the street. In drawing nexus between his the observation made, [the officer] had seen this type of 'exchange done several hundred times' street had made several hundred narcotics arrests of very type").

Here, Officer was conducting tour of duty in area of the block of Chancellor Street for both narcotic enforcement; particular part of Chancellor Street high crime area. See re D.M., A.2d 1161 2001) (a may consider fact stop occurred in crime area in assessing circumstances). stated while on his tour duty Cox the middle of Chancellor Street with Taylor, who placed standing denominations of United States currency Cox's hand. then retrieved "pill bottle" pocket withdrew from it small object, which he Taylor's hand using "pinching motion." N.T. Suppression placed Hearing, 5/18/16, at Ferrero approached Cox and Taylor, both quickly dispersed opposite directions. See Commonwealth v. Gorby, 588 A.2d 902 1991) (evidence of flight admissible relevant establish inference of guilt). has been Narcotics Enforcement Team officer since 1995, the vice enforcement team since an officer the sixth district twenty-one years. Officer Ferrero's "over 50" arrests area of 1200 Chancellor Street. Id. at Furthermore, stated during time officer, he has the "pinching motion" conducted by Cox several times, "every time" executed arrest incident to observing that motion, recovered narcotics. at

Here, circumstances suggest Officer Ferrero's observations, experience, training knowledge of the particular area are sufficient establish the requisite nexus necessary to support probable warrantless arrest.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

J seph D. Seletyn,

Prothonotary

Date: 5/8/2017