Com. v. Padilla, R. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • J-A17040-21
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    :
    RAMON PADILLA                              :
    :
    Appellant               :   No. 1110 EDA 2020
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 4, 2020
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
    No(s): CP-51-CR-0003828-2019
    BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
    DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:
    FILED DECEMBER 29, 2021
    Because the uncontroverted facts establish that Padilla was not frisked
    for officer safety but for reasons that the police officers did not remember,
    reasonable suspicion was not established. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
    At the suppression hearing, the Commonwealth called Officer Ryan
    Redmond, the officer who conducted the frisk. As part of his testimony, the
    Commonwealth played his body camera (body-cam) footage to show what
    happened during the traffic stop.          On the night of Padilla’s arrest, around
    10:00 p.m., Officer Redmond was on patrol with Officers Mark Wildsmith and
    Robert McGrody. While on patrol, Officer Redmond saw a white Toyota Corolla
    ____________________________________________
    *   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-A17040-21
    with dark-tinted windows. Because he could not see inside the vehicle, Officer
    Redmond pulled the car over.     The car’s driver complied and pulled over
    around the 3100 block of E Street. There were three males in the car; Padilla
    was in the front passenger seat. The officers obtained their IDs and handed
    them to Officer Wildsmith to run them through the patrol car’s computer
    system. While that was occurring, Officer Redmond stood on the passenger
    side of the car while Officer McGrody was on the driver’s side.        Officer
    Redmond described the area as being “a high-drug and crime area” with “lots
    of shootings.”
    According to Officer Redmond, Padilla adjusted his groin area several
    times during the traffic stop as if he were “trying to conceal something.”
    Officer Redmond did not immediately remove Padilla from the car, nor did he
    tell him to stop reaching for his groin.   Instead, as his body-cam footage
    showed, Officer Redmond talked to Padilla and the backseat passenger while
    Officer Wildsmith was checking the IDs. First, Officer Redmond asked Padilla
    what was in a shoe box near his feet. Padilla responded that it was shoes and
    reached down and opened the shoe box to show it to Officer Redmond. Next,
    the backseat passenger told Officer Redmond that he was at work that day.
    Officer Redmond turned his attention to him, asking him for his name and
    whether he had been “locked up” before. The backseat passenger responded
    that he had. Finally, Officer Redmond then turned back to Padilla and asked
    him what was in his pocket. Padilla stuck his hand in his pocket and pulled
    -2-
    J-A17040-21
    out a pill bottle. Officer Redmond asked if the pills were his, to which Padilla
    responded they were.
    After Padilla showed Officer Redmond the pill bottle, Officer Redmond
    walked pack to the patrol car. Officer Wildsmith told him that the backseat
    passenger had a warrant for trespassing.      Id. at 23-24. Officer Redmond
    confirmed at the suppression hearing that Officer Wildsmith was not referring
    to Padilla. Id. at 24. Officer Redmond then said, “he seemed pretty calm.”
    Id.
    Officer Wildsmith then began to look down at a cell phone. While he did
    so, Officer Redmond asked, “[i]s that one of them?” Id. at 25. When asked
    if he recalled what he was referring to, Officer Redmond responded that he
    did not. Id. Then, when Officer Wildsmith nodded his head in response to
    Officer Redmond’s question, Officer Redmond asked, “[t]he guy in the
    passenger or front-seat passenger,” with Officer Wildsmith responding,
    “[f]ront.” Id. Again, when asked if he recalled what this was about, Officer
    Redmond responded, “I don’t.”      Id. at 26.   Officer Wildsmith, meanwhile,
    responded the same, stating: “I don’t recall exactly. I’m not going to sit up
    here under oath and say I remember exactly because I don’t.” Id. at 37.
    After that, Officer Redmond asked Officer Wildsmith to “pull him out.”
    Id. at 27.   Officer Redmond then said, “[l]et’s check him out,” which he
    confirmed at the hearing.
    Q. Just stopping the [body cam footage], Officer. You would agree
    that’s you saying, “Let’s check him out.”
    -3-
    J-A17040-21
    A. Yes.
    Q. And that’s, again, referring to Mr. Padilla.
    A. Yes.
    Id.
    Officer Redmond next prepared to approach the car but waited a few
    moments for Officer Wildsmith in case Padilla tried to run. Id. at 30. At that
    moment, however, a police sergeant pulled up and got out of his car, at which
    point Officer Redmond walked to the passenger door and said to Padilla, “[a]ll
    right, my man, step out for me.” Id. at 28.
    The majority finds that reasonable suspicion existed because:
    Although Appellant contends that his alleged movements provided
    the sole basis for Officer Redmond’s suspicion that Appellant was
    armed and dangerous, the record shows that various factors
    existed to support reasonable suspicion: (1) Officer Redmond’s
    four years’ experience as a Philadelphia Police Officer; (2) a
    roadside vehicle stop; (2) the stop occurred at nighttime; (3) the
    vehicle had tinted windows; (4) the stop occurred in a high crime
    area; (5) the area was known for gun violence; (6) Appellant
    made furtive movements towards his groin; (7) Appellant’s hand
    movements were associated with an area used for secreting a
    weapon; and (8) the pat-down occurred for protection of the
    police officers. (citations omitted.)
    Majority Memorandum, at 16.
    I disagree with the majority because it was apparent from the testimony
    of Officer Redmond and Officer Wildsmith, confirmed by the body-cam footage
    and the trial court’s finding, that Padilla was not searched because for fear of
    officer safety.
    -4-
    J-A17040-21
    At the outset, I recognize we are bound by the suppression court’s
    factual findings that are supported by the record. Officer Redmond testified
    that he saw that Padilla “kept on like adjusting his groin area, like trying to
    conceal something.” See N.T., 10/9/19, at 8. While the body-cam footage
    does not depict the movements, there is also nothing in the body-cam footage
    to contradict Officer Redmond’s testimony that he observed the movements.
    Because Officer Redmond testified that he saw the movements and the
    suppression court credited that testimony, we are bound by that factual
    finding. I also agree that the other factors mentioned by the majority can be
    taken into consideration in determining whether an officer can conduct a
    search, but absent Padilla’s movements, there would be no basis to conduct
    the search because if that were so, just driving in that neighborhood would
    justify a search.    However, I disagree with the majority because the
    uncontradicted facts evidence that officer safety or any belief that Padilla was
    armed and dangerous was not the reason for the search. Moreover, it is the
    Commonwealth’s burden to show reasonable suspicion for the search, and
    neither Officer Redmond nor Officer Wildsmith could not provide any reason
    why they decided to “check [Padilla] out.”
    First, the uncontradicted facts show that after observing Padilla’s furtive
    movements in a high crime neighborhood in a car with tinted windows at night,
    Officer Redmond, with his four years’ experience, did not immediately remove
    Padilla from the vehicle nor show any concern about his personal safety or
    -5-
    J-A17040-21
    that he believed that Padilla was armed and dangerous.             Instead, after
    observing those movements, Officer Redmond:
    •     did not remove Padilla from the car but talked to Padilla and
    the backseat passenger while the other officer was checking IDs.
    •     asked Padilla what was in a shoe box near his feet, Padilla
    responded and allowed him to reach down and open the shoe box
    to show it to him with not a concern that a weapon may be in it.
    •     then turned his attention to the backseat passenger and
    asked him for his name and whether he had been “locked up”
    before. The backseat passenger responded that he had.
    •     then turned back to Padilla and asked him what was in his
    pocket. He permitted Padilla, without concern, to put his hand in
    his pocket from which he pulled out a pill bottle. Officer Redmond
    asked if the pills were his, to which Padilla responded they were.
    Officer Redmond’s conduct is not consistent that had a reasonable
    suspicion that Padilla was armed and dangerous or that he was in any danger.
    If so, with the other two officers that were on scene, he would have ordered
    the occupants to exit the car immediately for his protection and that of his
    fellow officers.
    Moreover, the body-cam footage conclusively confirms that officer
    safety was not the reason for the search.        After engaging in the conduct
    described above, Officer Redmond returned to the police car to talk with
    Officer Wildsmith, most of which Officer Redmond was asked about on cross-
    examination and confirmed.
    That footage contradicts Officer Redmond’s contention that he pulled
    Padilla out of the car and frisked him for officer safety. In fact, the suppression
    -6-
    J-A17040-21
    court addressed these facts in its Rule 1925(a) opinion and acknowledged that
    Officer Redmond and Officer Wildsmith decided to remove Padilla from the car
    and check him out.
    Officer Redmond then returned to the patrol car to speak
    with Officer Wildsmith. The content of the conversation was
    unclear but it is undisputed that Officers Redmond and Wildsmith
    referenced [Padilla] as the “front-seat passenger.” Neither officer
    could remember the reason for the reference to [Padilla], nor does
    the body worn camera footage clarify the context.           Officer
    Redmond then asked Officer Wildsmith to “pull him [Padilla] out”
    and said “let’s check him out.” It is clear from the testimony
    and the footage that the officers decided to remove
    [Padilla] from the vehicle.
    Trial Court Opinion, 10/21/20, at 3 (emphasis added).
    The majority ignores the trial court finding that Officer Redmond and
    Officer Wildsmith decided to remove Padilla from the car and “check him out”
    after their conversation and could not provide a reason why they did so. As a
    result, both the suppression court’s analysis and the majority overlook the
    “totality of the circumstances” of the traffic stop, including the evidence that
    contradicted Officer Redmond’s contention that he frisked Padilla out of safety
    concerns. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 
    188 A.3d 454
    , 459-60 (Pa. Super.
    2018) (reversing suppression court’s probable cause finding for vehicle search
    where court acknowledged only one fact weighing against probable cause and
    ignored all other facts that weighed heavily against probable cause).
    Likewise, the majority’s analysis disregards Officer Redmond and Officer
    Wildsmith’s conversation as depicted in the body-cam footage. According to
    the majority, this conversation “did not negate the officer’s concern for
    -7-
    J-A17040-21
    safety.”   See Majority Memorandum, at 18.      Under this rationale, Officer
    Redmond saw Padilla adjust his groin and concluded that Padilla was possibly
    armed and dangerous but engaged in the previously described conduct that
    was inconsistent with any such belief. What is shown on the body-cam footage
    is that Officer Redmond and Officer Wildsmith decided to check out Padilla
    based on a reason that neither could explain at the suppression hearing. If
    you, the officer, can’t explain why the search occurred, obviously reasonable
    suspicion has not been made out.
    For these reasons, I would reverse the suppression court’s order
    denying suppression and reverse all of Padilla’s convictions for firearm
    possession.
    Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
    -8-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1110 EDA 2020

Judges: Pellegrini, J.

Filed Date: 12/29/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/29/2021