Com. v. Shumaker, J. ( 2016 )

J-S07025-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JUDD HARRISON SHUMAKER
Appellant No. 1241 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 10, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0003578-2014
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED APRIL 28, 2016
Judd Harrison Shumaker appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed on July 10, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County.
That same day, at the conclusion of a stipulated bench trial, the trial court
convicted Shumaker of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) and
two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia.1 The trial court sentenced
Shumaker to an aggregate term of two years’ probation. On appeal,
Shumaker challenges the court’s denial of his suppression motion pursuant
to Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (U.S. 2013). After a thorough
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16) and (a)(32), respectively.
J-S07025-16
review of the submissions by the parties, the certified record, and relevant
law, we affirm.
The trial court made the following findings of fact, based upon the
evidence presented at the November 21, 2014, suppression hearing:
1. On or about June 6, 2014, Officer Peter O’Brien of the Bern
Township Police Department was dispatched to 91 Tobias
Lane in Bernville, Berks County, Pennsylvania to check on
a resident who was reportedly under the influence of a
controlled substance.
2. It was dark outside, so Office[r] O’Brien illuminated a
pathway to the residence with a flashlight.
3. As he approached the residence, Officer O’Brien noticed
that [Shumaker] was sitting on the porch.
4. Officer O’Brien observed that [Shumaker] was holding a
box on his lap, and asked [him] if any weapons were in the
box.
5. [Shumaker] replied, “No,” and quickly opened and closed
the box, revealing what Officer O’Brien immediately
recognized as a glass pipe commonly used to smoke crack
cocaine.
6. Officer O’Brien asked [Shumaker] to give him the box so
that he could retrieve the pipe.
7. [Shumaker] opened the box, removed a small orange
metal container, and attempted to conceal it in his left
hand.[2]
____________________________________________
2
The notes of testimony indicate that after Shumaker removed the small
orange container, he handed over the box to Officer O’Brien. N.T.,
11/21/2014, at 8.
-2-
J-S07025-16
8. After Officer O’Brien informed [Shumaker] that he saw him
remove the container from the box, [Shumaker] handed
the container to the Officer.
9. Officer O’Brien opened the container to ensure that a small
weapon, such as a razorblade, was not inside.
10. Upon opening the container, Officer O’Brien discovered
thirty small bags of suspected crack cocaine.
11. The entire interaction between Officer O’Brien and
[Shumaker] lasted less than a minute.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Disposition of Shumaker’s
Omnibus Pretrial Motion, 12/23/2014, at 2-3.
Shumaker was arrested and charged with one count of possession of
controlled substance and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia.
On October 1, 2014, he filed a motion to suppress evidence. A hearing was
held regarding the matter on November 21, 2014. On December 23, 2014,
the court denied Shumaker’s suppression motion. Shumaker’s case
proceeded to a one-day stipulated non-jury trial on July 10, 2015. The court
convicted him of all counts. That same day, the court sentenced him to one
year of probation on the cocaine possession count and one year of probation
for each paraphernalia count, running concurrently with each other but
consecutive to the possession conviction. Shumaker did not file a post-
sentence motion but did file this timely appeal.3
____________________________________________
3
On July 20, 2015, the trial court ordered Shumaker to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3-
J-S07025-16
In Shumaker’s sole issue, he contends the court erred in denying his
motion to suppress because the police did not possess reasonable suspicion
that he was engaged in criminal activity to justify a Terry4 stop or search.
Specifically, relying on Jardines, he states:
Here, police, responding to an anonymous telephone call of
an overdose, observed [Shumaker] sitting on his front porch in
no state of physical distress and not committing any criminal
offenses. [Shumaker] was sitting with a box on his lap. Police
immediately entered the porch of [Shumaker]’s house, decided
to search for weapons and asked [him] if there were weapons in
the box on his lap. In response to police questioning
[Shumaker] stated that there were not and opened the box,
displaying apparent drug paraphernalia.
The key distinction between this and questioning which
might be acceptable under an implied license to approach a
residence and make contact is that police physically invaded the
curtilage when [it] was not necessary to do so in order to make
contact with the occupant, who was sitting on the front porch.
Police could have approached and made inquiries of [Shumaker]
without confronting him within the curtilage after deciding to
search for weapons for no apparent reason.
Shumaker’s Brief at 11-12. Moreover, Shumaker argues:
To march onto the front porch without asking permission to
conduct a search of an occupant’s person and effects for
weapons is physically intrusive. Further, the scope of any
license – express or implied – is limited not only to a particular
area but also to a specific purpose[.] The social norms that
invite a visitor to approach an occupant on his front porch do not
invite him onto the porch or invite him onto the porch to conduct
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
Shumaker filed a concise statement on August 3, 2015. The trial court
issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on August 6, 2015,
incorporating and adopting its December 23, 2014 findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
4
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
-4-
J-S07025-16
a search. No one is impliedly invited to enter the protected
premises of the home in order to do nothing but conduct a
search.
Id. at 13. Shumaker concludes the police did not possess reasonable
suspicion and therefore, he was improperly seized within the curtilage of his
home. Id. at 14.
This Court’s well-settled standard of review of a denial of a motion to
suppress evidence is as follows:
[An appellate court’s] standard of review in addressing a
challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is limited to
determining whether the suppression court’s factual findings are
supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions
drawn from those facts are correct. Because the Commonwealth
prevailed before the suppression court, we may consider only
the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence
for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the
context of the record as a whole. Where the suppression court’s
factual findings are supported by the record, [the appellate court
is] bound by [those] findings and may reverse only if the court’s
legal conclusions are erroneous. Where ... the appeal of the
determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of
legal error, the suppression court’s legal conclusions are not
binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if
the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts.
Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject to []
plenary review.
Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010) (internal citations
and quotation marks omitted).
In Commonwealth v. Boswell, 721 A.2d 336 (Pa. 1998), the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained:
Interaction between police and citizens may be characterized as
a “mere encounter,” an “investigative detention,” or a “custodial
detention.” Police may engage in a mere encounter absent any
-5-
J-S07025-16
suspicion of criminal activity, and the citizen is not required to
stop or to respond. Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 703 A.2d 25,
30 (Pa. Super. 1997). If the police action becomes too intrusive,
a mere encounter may escalate into an investigatory stop or a
seizure. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 428 Pa. Super. 246,
249, 630 A.2d 1231, 1233 (1993). If the interaction rises to the
level of an investigative detention, the police must possess
reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, and the
citizen is subjected to a stop and a period of detention. Id.
Probable cause must support a custodial detention or arrest. Id.
To decide whether a seizure has occurred, we apply the following
objective test: “a court must consider all the circumstances
surrounding the encounter to determine whether the police
conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that
the person was not free to decline the officers’ requests or
otherwise terminate the encounter.” [Florida v. Bostick, 501
U.S. 429, 439, 111 S. Ct. 2382, 115 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1991)]. In
applying this test, it is necessary to examine the nature of the
encounter. Commonwealth v. Lewis, 535 Pa. 501, 508, 636
A.2d 619, 623 (1994). Circumstances to consider include, but
are not limited to, the following: the number of officers present
during the interaction; whether the officer informs the citizen
they are suspected of criminal activity; the officer’s demeanor
and tone of voice; the location and timing of the interaction; the
visible presence of weapons on the officer; and the questions
asked. Terry v. Ohio, [392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d
889 (1968)], supra; [Interest of Jermaine, 399 Pa. Super.
503, 582 A.2d 1058, 1060-61 (Pa. Super. 1990)]. See also
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 100 S. Ct. 1870,
64 L. Ed. 2d 497 (1980). “[O]therwise inoffensive contact
between a member of the public and the police cannot, as a
matter of law, amount to a seizure of that person.”
Mendenhall, [446 U.S.] at 555, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 64 L. Ed. 2d
497.
Id. at 340.
Moreover,
[i]t is well established that “[a]bsent probable cause and exigent
circumstances, warrantless searches and seizures in a private
home violate both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1,
[Section] 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” Commonwealth
-6-
J-S07025-16
v. Gibbs, 2009 Pa. Super. 181, 981 A.2d 274, 279 (Pa. Super.
2009). Our courts have extended this constitutional protection
to the curtilage of a person’s home by analyzing “factors that
determine whether an individual reasonably may expect that an
area immediately adjacent to the home will remain private.” Id.
at 279. “Curtilage is entitled to constitutional protection from
unreasonable searches and seizures as a place where the
occupants have a reasonable expectation of privacy that society
is prepared to accept.” Commonwealth v. Fickes, 2009 PA
Super 64, 969 A.2d 1251, 1256 (Pa. Super. 2009).
Commonwealth v. Simmen, 58 A.3d 811, 815 (Pa. Super. 2012).
Additionally, where an investigation takes place in a constitutionally
protected area, the question becomes “whether it was accomplished through
an unlicensed physical intrusion.” Jardines, 133 S. Ct. at 1415 (footnote
omitted). In Jardines, the Supreme Court explained:
While law enforcement officers need not “shield their eyes” when
passing by the home “on public thoroughfares,” [California v.
Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213, 106 S. Ct. 1809, 90 L. Ed. 2d 210
(1986)], an officer’s leave to gather information is sharply
circumscribed when he steps off those thoroughfares and enters
the Fourth Amendments protected areas. In permitting, for
example, visual observation of the home from “public navigable
airspace,” we were careful to note that it was done “in a
physically nonintrusive manner.” Ibid.Entick v. Carrington, 2
Wils. K. B. 275, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (K. B. 1765), a case
“undoubtedly familiar” to “every American statesman” at the
time of the Founding, Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616,
626, 6 S. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746 (1886), states the general rule
clearly: “[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred,
that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without
his leave.” 2 Wils. K. B., at 291, 95 Eng. Rep., at 817.
…
“A license may be implied from the habits of the country,”
notwithstanding the “strict rule of the English common law as to
entry upon a close.” McKee v. Gratz, 260 U.S. 127, 136, 43 S.
Ct. 16, 67 L. Ed. 167 (1922) (Holmes, J.). We have accordingly
-7-
J-S07025-16
recognized that “the knocker on the front door is treated as an
invitation or license to attempt an entry, justifying ingress to the
home by solicitors, hawkers and peddlers of all kinds.” Breard
v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 626, 71 S. Ct. 920, 95 L. Ed.
1233, 62 Ohio Law. Abs. 210 (1951). This implicit license
typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front
path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then
(absent invitation to linger longer) leave. Complying with the
terms of that traditional invitation does not require fine-grained
legal knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by the
Nation’s Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters. Thus, a police officer
not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock,
precisely because that is “no more than any private citizen might
do.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. ___, ___, 131 S. Ct. 1849,
179 L. Ed. 2d 865, 881 (2011).
Id. at 1415-1416 (footnote omitted).5
Thus,
[w]hen an officer enters the curtilage, the key inquiry under the
property based test becomes whether an “implied license” exists
for the officer’s conduct within the curtilage. [Jardines, 133 S.
Ct.] at 1415. For example, an implied license exists for the
officer to approach the house by the front path without a warrant
and knock on the front door for the purpose of asking the
occupant about an ongoing investigation. Id. Such conduct is
permissible because it is “no more than any private citizen might
do.” Id. Conversely, an officer does not have an implied license
to “explor[e] the front path with a metal detector, or march[] his
bloodhound into the garden before saying hello and asking
permission.” Id.
Commonwealth v. Eichler, __ A.3d __, 2016 Pa. Super. LEXIS 60, 16-17
n.5 [439 MDA 2015] (Pa. Super. Feb. 2, 2016).
____________________________________________
5
See also Commonwealth v. Gibson, 638 A.2d 203, 207 (Pa. 1994)
(“the police have the power to knock on the doors of the citizens of this
Commonwealth for investigatory purposes without probable cause”).
-8-
J-S07025-16
Turning to the present matter, at the November 21, 2014, suppression
hearing, Officer O’Brien testified that on the night in question, he was
requested to respond to Shumaker’s house “to check on his well-being
regarding a possible heroin overdose.” N.T., 11/21/2014, at 4. The officer
stated it was dark and raining that evening and he noticed the garage door
was open with the light on. Id. at 5-6. He observed another individual run
to the back of the garage and hide. Id. He then saw Shumaker sitting on
the side porch of the house. Id. at 5. Officer O’Brien testified Shumaker
asked him what he was doing there and the officer responded that he was
there to check on Shumaker. Id. at 7. The officer observed that Shumaker
had a box on his lap and asked, “Are there any guns in there or any
weapons in there.” Id. Shumaker responded in the negative and “turned
the box and opened it showing [the officer] there were no guns in the box.”
Id. at 8. Officer O’Brien stated he saw “in the box that there was a glass
pipe that would be used to smoke crack cocaine.” Id.
The officer indicated Shumaker quickly opened and closed the box so
he asked Shumaker to give him the box because he had seen the pipe. Id.
Officer O’Brien testified Shumaker opened the box again, removed a small
orange container, and handed over the box. Id. The officer then stated,
“Well, I just said, I saw you take that out of there. And with that, he --
-9-
J-S07025-16
without any prompting, he just handed [the container] over to me.” Id. at
8-9.6
Based on the testimony, the trial court made the following conclusions
of law:
2. The encounter between Officer O’Brien and [Shumaker]
constituted a mere encounter, as [Shumaker] was free to
walk inside his home, or ask Officer O’Brien to leave.
3. [Shumaker] was not required to respond to Officer
O’Brien’s questions, but did so voluntarily.
…
5. Here, [Shumaker]’s consent to search was freely given.
[Shumaker] was not physically detained, was not under
arrest, and was not coerced in any fashion. When Officer
O’Brien asked [Shumaker] if he had any weapons,
[Shumaker] voluntarily opened the box, revealing the pipe
to Officer O’Brien.
6. Similarly, after being informed by Officer O’Brien that the
Officer saw him remove the small metal container from the
box, [Shumaker] voluntarily handed the container to
Officer O’Brien.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Disposition of Shumaker’s
Omnibus Pretrial Motion, 12/23/2014, at 4-5.
We agree with the trial court’s determination. The exchanges between
Officer O’Brien and Shumaker took place on the porch. Accordingly, the two
men were located in the curtilage of the residence, a part of the home for
____________________________________________
6
Officer O’Brien indicated there were 30 small packets of rock cocaine
inside the container. Id. at 9.
- 10 -
J-S07025-16
Fourth Amendment purposes. See Simmen, 58 A.3d 811, 815. Therefore,
as set forth in Jardines, we must determine whether the officer’s
investigation was achieved through “an unlicensed physical intrusion.”
Jardines, 133 S. Ct. at 1415.
We find that Officer O’Brien’s actions in this case are dissimilar to the
investigating officers in Jardines who entered onto the porch of the home
with a drug-sniffing dog. Here, Officer O’Brien merely walked up to the
porch to respond to a report that someone’s well-being was endangered
based on a possible heroin overdose. Accordingly, Officer O’Brien
encountered Shumaker from a lawful vantage point and the facts
surrounding the incident do not amount to an unlicensed physical intrusion.
Furthermore, contrary to Shumaker’s argument, Officer O’Brien’s
interaction with Shumaker did not amount to a search as it was just a mere
encounter. In considering the circumstances surrounding the exchange, as
identified in Boswell, 721 A.2d at 340, the number of officers present
during the interaction; whether the officer informed Shumaker he was
suspected of criminal activity; the officer’s demeanor and tone of voice; the
location and timing of the interaction; the visible presence of weapons on
the officer; and the questions asked, it is evident that Officer O’Brien’s
conduct with respect to Shumaker was not offensive and cannot be
considered a seizure. While Officer O’Brien may have asked about weapons
to ensure his own personal safety, Shumaker was not required to respond to
- 11 -
J-S07025-16
Officer O’Brien’s questions but did so of his own volition. Furthermore, the
officer did not tell Shumaker to open the box and did not put his own hands
on the box to seize and search. Officer O’Brien merely asked Shumaker if
there were any weapons in the box.
Lastly, as the trial court correctly points out, Shumaker voluntarily
consented to showing Office O’Brien the contents of his box when he opened
it without any request to do so. See Commonwealth v. Kemp, 961 A.2d
1247, 1261 (Pa. Super. 2008) (the “following factors outlined therein are
pertinent to a determination of whether consent to search is voluntarily
given: 1) the presence or absence of police excesses; 2) whether there was
physical contact; 3) whether police directed the citizen’s movements; 4)
police demeanor and manner of expression; 5) the location of the
interdiction; 6) the content of the questions and statements; 7) the
existence and character of the initial investigative detention, including its
degree of coerciveness; 8) whether the person has been told that he is free
to leave; and 9) whether the citizen has been informed that he is not
required to consent to the search.”). The evidence supports a conclusion
that Officer O’Brien did not compel Shumaker to do anything, let alone open
the box. Likewise, the fact that it was readily apparent to Officer O’Brien the
incriminating nature of the pipe in the box is no consequence because
Shumaker had voluntarily opened the box. Similarly, Shumaker voluntarily
- 12 -
J-S07025-16
handed over the orange container without being requested to do so by the
officer.
Because Officer O’Brien had a legitimate purpose for being on the
porch, the exchanges between him and Shumaker constituted a mere
encounter, and Shumaker voluntarily handed over the box and orange
container, we conclude the trial court did not err in denying Shumaker’s
motion to suppress. Accordingly, his sole issue on appeal fails.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/28/2016
- 13 -