Page 25 - PCPA Summer 2024 Bulletin Magazine

25
SUMMER 2024 BULLETIN
CHRIS BOYLE'S LEGAL UPDATE
by the intersection wearing a ski mask. Officer Walls
described the ski mask as a "full mask" that covered
his entire face except his eyes. At the time, the outdoor
temperature was 66 degrees Fahrenheit. The weather did
not require thermal protection from a ski mask. Obviously,
the ski mask was worn for some other purpose. During
his employment as a Chester Police Officer, Officer
Walls had previously encountered individuals wearing
ski masks and those individuals were commonly
involved in robberies, shootings, and homicides.
Appellant was seen approaching an occupied vehicle
while grasping his waistband in a manner Officer Walls
recognized from his training and experience as indicative
of a person carrying an illegal firearm. When Appellant
noticed Officer Walls, he stepped out of the street and
positioned himself in such a way that a car was between
him and Officer Walls, blocking Walls' view. Officer
Walls got out of his patrol vehicle which prompted
Appellant to begin walking away from the intersection.
As Appellant walked away, he was manipulating an
object in his jacket pocket and was continually looking
back at Officer Walls while positioning part of his body
away from the [*3] officer. Officer Walls demonstrated
the maneuver and described it as "blading." Based
on Officer Walls' training and experience, he
recognized the "blading" maneuver as consistent
with a person in possession of an illegal firearm or
other contraband and trying to obscure it from view.
Based on Appellant wearing a ski mask in a high crime
area during warm weather coupled with Appellant's
familiar "blading" maneuver, Officer Walls conducted
an investigatory detention and pat down. Upon
performing the pat down, Officer Walls discovered a
Glock .40 caliber handgun in Appellant's waistband.
Trial Court Opinion, 4/11/23, at 3-5.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress and argued
that he was unlawfully subjected to a stop and
frisk. A suppression hearing was held, and the trial
court denied the motion. Appellant filed a motion
for reconsideration, which was denied after oral
argument. The parties proceeded to a stipulated
bench trial wherein the trial court found Appellant
guilty and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 30
to 60 months of incarceration. This appeal followed.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred by denying Appellant's
motion to suppress physical [*4] evidence and
statements where appellant was seized in the
absence of specific and articulable facts to support a
reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot
and frisked in the absence of reasonable suspicion
that he was armed and dangerous, in violation of
the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions?
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying appellant's
motion to suppress physical evidence and statements
where the search of appellant exceeded the scope of a
permissible Terry frisk, in violation of the United States
and Pennsylvania Constitutions?
Appellant's Brief at 4.
It is well-settled that:
[O]ur standard of review in addressing a challenge
to a trial court's denial of a suppression motion is
limited to determining whether the factual findings
are supported by the record and whether the legal
conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. We are
bound by the suppression court's factual findings so
long as they are supported by the record; our standard
of review on questions of law is de novo. Where, as
here, the defendant is appealing the ruling of the
suppression court, we may consider only the evidence
of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence
for the defense [*5] as remains uncontradicted. Our
scope of review of suppression rulings includes only
the suppression hearing record and excludes evidence
elicited at trial.
Commonwealth v. Yandamuri, 159 A.3d 503, 516 (Pa.
2017) (internal citations omitted).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution
protect citizens against unreasonable searches and
seizures by law enforcement. U.S. Const. amend.
continued on next page
The area around the intersection
of West Third and Thurlow
Streets is a high-crime area
known for violent crime and
open-air drug sales.