Com. v. Haynes, A. ( 2020 )

J-A13027-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ARIUS MALIK HAYNES :
:
Appellant : No. 1633 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 29, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-46-CR-0007617-2017
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JUNE 30, 2020
Arius Malik Haynes appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in
the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, following his convictions
of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver1, conspiracy to
commit PWID,2 promoting prostitution,3 possession of a controlled substance,4
and possession of drug paraphernalia.5 On appeal, Haynes challenges the trial
court’s denial of his suppression motion, specifically claiming the stop of his
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
2 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(a).
3 18 Pa.C.S. § 5902(b)(1).
4 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).
5 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32).
J-A13027-20
vehicle was unlawful because it was not based on reasonable suspicion. After
careful review, we affirm.
At a suppression hearing held on November 9, 2018, the following facts
of the case were adduced. Upper Merion Township Detective John Wright
testified that he has been a member of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU)
since 2008. N.T. Suppression Hearing/Stipulated Bench Trial, 11/9/18, at 5.
The SIU is primarily responsible for the investigation of vice-type crimes, such
as narcotics offenses, prostitution and other crimes in the township. Id.
Detective Wright has extensive experience and training in both narcotics and
prostitution investigations, having attended the Montgomery County District
Attorney’s local drug task force and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
intercountry detective school. Id. Detective Wright has conducted over 200
drug investigations and arrests, as well as over 200 prostitution investigations
and arrests. Id. at 7. Detective Wright testified that promoters of prostitution
will often use drugs to attract a client base. Id. at 29-30.
On October 12, 2017, Detective Wright was conducting an undercover
prostitution investigation. Id. Detective Wright was monitoring
BackPage.com, a known escort website, when he saw an advertisement that
he recognized through his experience and training as being consistent with
both drug and prostitution activity. Id. The ad contained erotic pictures of a
woman and referred to “party favors,” a slang term Detective Wright knew
meant illegal drugs. Id. at 8. Detective Wright responded to the ad by texting
the phone number listed on the advertisement. Detective Wright introduced
-2-
J-A13027-20
himself and told the woman on the other end of the phone who identified
herself as “Diamond,” that he was interested in “an hour,” a common term
representing a segment of time for prostitution activity. Id. at 9. Detective
Wright was quoted a price of roughly $200.00. Id. at 9, 62. Detective Wright
also asked Diamond about “party favors,” indicating that he was interested in
“white girl,” a slang term for cocaine. Id. at 9-10. Diamond asked Detective
Wright if he wanted crack or regular powder cocaine; he responded that he
was interested in an “eight ball,” a slang term for a small quantity of cocaine.
Id. at 10. Detective Wright negotiated a total price of $425, for both the
drugs and prostitution activity. Id.
Detective Wright arranged to meet Diamond, later determined to be
Danielle Simmons, at the Hyatt Place Hotel (Hotel), located at 440 American
Avenue, King of Prussia, Montgomery County, between 12:30 and 1:00 p.m.
that same day. Id. He testified that the Hotel is an establishment that had
been associated with approximately 20 prior prostitution investigations and
arrests, as well as numerous drug investigations. Id. at 11-12. Backup police
officers set up surveillance of the interior and exterior of the Hotel. Id. at 11.
Two plainclothes detectives, one of whom was Detective Michael Laverty,6
were stationed outside the hotel in an unmarked vehicle. The unmarked car
____________________________________________
6 Detective Laverty also has extensive training and experience in drug and
prostitution investigations and has been recognized as a drug expert. Id. at
34. Detective Laverty testified that he had previously been involved in
narcotics and prostitution cases at the Hotel. Id. at 34-35.
-3-
J-A13027-20
was located in one of the first spots of the Hotel parking lot, giving the officers
a clear view of both the front of the Hotel and the entrance to the parking lot
along American Avenue. Id. at 37. Detective Wright and Sergeant Jeff
Maurer stationed themselves in Room #605 of the Hotel, which had a clear
view of the Hotel’s main entrance. Id. Detective Wright and Maurer stayed
inside the room and “kept an eye out [the] window at the main entrance,”
while Detective Wright continued to communicate via text with Diamond. Id.
at 12.
Shortly before the time of the arranged meeting, surveillance officers
began watching all vehicles in the vicinity of the hotel. Id. at 37. At
approximately 12:50 p.m., the officers observed a black Jeep pulling up to the
base of the Hotel driveway, stopping approximately 70 yards before the
Hotel’s front entrance, at the base of a hill. Id. at 13, 38. The detectives
found this suspicious and possibly indicative of illegal activity. Id. at 38. At
that point, Detectives Wright and Laverty observed a black female, who was
holding a cell phone, exit the black Jeep from the right side of the vehicle and
walk towards the Hotel entrance. Id. at 13, 38-39. As Detective Wright
observed the female looking at her cell phone, he simultaneously received a
text message from Diamond indicating that she had arrived at the hotel. Id.
at 12. Detective Wright watched her approach the Hotel, but temporarily lost
sight of her when she entered the establishment. Id. at 13. Detective
Laverty saw the black female actually enter the Hotel. Id. at 39.
-4-
J-A13027-20
Once the female was inside the hotel, Detective Wright received another
text message from Diamond, inquiring as to the location of his room. Id. at
14. Moments later, he received another text message from her indicating that
“she was there.” Id. At the same time, Detective Wright looked out the hotel
room door’s peephole and saw the female they had been observing. Id. The
woman entered the room, the door was closed, and Detective Wright
immediately identified himself as a police officer. At that moment, Detective
Wright looked at the woman’s black Samsung Galaxy Amp cellular phone,
which she was holding when she entered the hotel room, and found his text
message string. Id. at 14, 24. Detective Wright then asked her for the
cocaine; the female retrieved an eight ball, inside a knotted bag, from her bra.
Id. at 25. The officers arrested the woman, later identified as Simmons, and
found a small, clear plastic bag of heroin on her person. Id. at 15, 26, 80.
Throughout this entire time, Detectives Wright and Laverty were in
constant communication with the detectives in the surveillance vehicle
stationed outside the hotel, relaying all of their observations and text
communications with Diamond/Simmons prior to and after she arrived at the
hotel. Id. at 15, 37. Once Simmons entered the hotel, Detective Laverty and
Officer Brian Hill began to follow the black Jeep which had left the Hotel
property once it dropped off the female. Id. at 39. As Detective Wright spoke
with Simmons, Sergeant Maurer was on the phone with the surveillance
officers following the Jeep, informing them that they had recovered drugs from
the person dropped off by the Jeep. Id. at 15, 26. Detective Wright testified
-5-
J-A13027-20
that there was no question in his mind, based on his clear vantage point as
well as the clothing and the appearance of Simmons, that she was the person
he observed getting out of the Jeep. Id. at 21-22.
During the time that Detective Laverty was surveilling the Jeep, he
observed the vehicle leave the hotel and head towards an apartment complex.
Id. at 40. Although Laverty lost sight of the Jeep for less than 10 seconds,
due to a line of trees at the hotel, he saw the vehicle drive down the lot as he
followed it and was certain it was the same black Jeep that he had seen pull
up to the Hotel and drop off Simmons. Id. at 39-40.
Based upon the information received from Detective Wright, Detective
Laverty radioed for a marked car. Id. at 41. A patrol officer on standby
stopped the black Jeep, occupied by two males, about 2-3 miles from the
Hotel.7 Id. at 38, 41. As Officer Laverty approached the Jeep following the
stop, he immediately observed a green leafy substance, which he identified
through experience and training to be marijuana, in plain view on the center
console and within reach of both occupants. At that point, the officer arrested
the men for drug possession. Id. at 42. The Jeep was impounded and taken
to Upper Merion Police Headquarters where a vehicle search was conducted
pursuant to a warrant. The search uncovered several cell phones, more
marijuana, plastic baggies used for packaging drugs, paperwork from the
Philadelphia prison system, and vehicle registration information. Id. at 81.
____________________________________________
7Detective Laverty testified that approximately nine minutes elapsed between
Simmons alighting from the Jeep and the Jeep being stopped. Id. at 40-41.
-6-
J-A13027-20
At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the trial court set forth its
findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(I), and denied
Haynes’ suppression motion, concluding that the car stop was based upon
reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and that the Jeep was
used to facilitate the commission of a crime. N.T. Suppression/Stipulated
Bench Trial, 11/9/18, at 60–66. Haynes immediately proceeded to a
stipulated non-jury trial, after which he was convicted of the aforementioned
offenses. On April 29, 2019, Haynes was sentenced to three concurrent
terms8 of 2½ to 5 years’ incarceration; the Commonwealth agreed to a
Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI)9 minimum of 22½ months’
incarceration. Finally, the sentencing judge recommended Haynes receive
drug and alcohol treatment through the Department of Corrections.
Haynes filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.
Haynes challenges the denial of suppression motion. Our standard of
review on appeal of the denial of a motion to suppress is to determine whether
the certified record supports the suppression court’s factual findings and the
legitimacy of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings.
Commonwealth v. Gould, 187 A.3d 927, 934 (Pa. Super. 2018). We
consider only the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses and so much of the
____________________________________________
8 No further penalty was imposed on the remaining two counts.
9 See 61 Pa.C.S. § 4501-4512.
-7-
J-A13027-20
defense’s evidence as, fairly read in the context of the record as a whole,
remains uncontradicted. Id. If the record supports the factual findings of the
suppression court, we will reverse only if there is an error in the legal
conclusions drawn from those factual findings. Id.
Haynes contends that the trial court improperly denied his motion to
suppress because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle.
Specifically, he argues that the trial court’s conclusion that “there was
reasonable suspicion to stop the Jeep because it was ‘used to facilitate the
commission of the crime,’” is unsupported by the record. Appellant’s Brief at
11. We disagree.
“In reviewing whether reasonable suspicion . . . exists, we must . . .
examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether there exists
a particularized and objective basis for suspecting an individual [] of criminal
activity.” Commonwealth v. Epps, 608 A.2d 1095, 1096 (Pa. Super. 1992).
These circumstances are to be viewed through the eyes of a trained officer,
not an ordinary citizen. Commonwealth v. Fink, 700 A.2d 447, 449 (Pa.
Super. 1997). To meet the standard of reasonable suspicion, “the officer must
point to specific and articulable facts which, together with the rational
inferences therefrom, reasonably warrant the intrusion. In ascertaining the
existence of reasonable suspicion, we must look to the totality of the
circumstances to determine whether the officer had reasonable suspicion that
criminal activity was afoot.” Commonwealth v. Barber, 889 A.2d 587, 593
(citations and quotations omitted).
-8-
J-A13027-20
Haynes asserts the facts of this case are indistinguishable from those of
Commonwealth v. Melendez, 676 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1996), as “both [cases
involve] traffic stops [that] were based on other criminal activity.” Id. at 12.
In Melendez, police had been investigating possible drug activity at
Melendez’s house and were surveilling her property. Id. at 227.
Approximately one hour after the surveillance began, Melendez left the house,
got into a vehicle and drove away. Id. Police stopped her, searched the
vehicle and her purse, and recovered a handgun, a large amount of cash, and
a drug tally sales sheet. Id. Prior to the search, the police had observed no
criminal activity on the part of Melendez; they had stopped and searched her
solely based on the fact that she was a suspect in a felony investigation. Id.
Melendez was convicted of various drug charges and a violation of the Uniform
Firearms Act based on the fruits of the search.
After this Court affirmed Melendez’s judgment of sentence, the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, finding that “Melendez was not
engaged in any activity at the time she was stopped which would cause a
person of reasonable caution to believe that she was then engaged in criminal
conduct.” Id. at 228. Specifically, the Court rejected the trial court’s rationale
that Melendez was justifiably stopped “for investigation,” where “no person
may be stopped for ‘investigation’ in the absence of an articulable reason to
suspect criminal activity,” and where “the record contains no indication that
police had any basis to believe that Melendez was engaged in any criminal
activity at the time of the stop.” Id. at 228-29.
-9-
J-A13027-20
The instant case differs significantly from Melendez. First, the
detectives here had reasonable suspicion to believe that the black Jeep Haynes
occupied was involved in criminal activity when it dropped off an individual at
a hotel known for prostitution activity at the exact time an officer had arranged
to meet an “escort” for prostitution-related activity and a drug sale at that
hotel, and that individual is arrested immediately thereafter for possession of
a controlled substance. See Commonwealth v. Cook, 735 A.2d 673, 676
(Pa. 1999) (police officer may detain individual in order to conduct
investigation if that officer reasonably suspects individual is engaging in
criminal conduct). Moreover, the detectives’ first-hand observations,
considered in light of their extensive training in drug and prostitution
investigations, supported their conclusion that the individuals in the Jeep were
“promoters” of prostitution, who used drugs to attract clients and control
prostitutes who worked for them. Commonwealth v. Foglia, 979 A.2d 357,
360 (“In making . . . determination [as to whether officer had reasonable
suspicion], must give ‘due weight . . . to the specific reasonable inferences
the police officer is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.’”).
In his Rule 581(I) findings of fact and conclusions of law, see
Suppression Hearing/Stipulated Bench Trial, 11/9/18, at 65-66, the trial judge
found that both detectives testified truthfully and accurately and that their
testimony was credible and worthy of belief. Id. The detectives’ testimony
established that: suspiciously, the black Jeep did not go to the front entrance
to drop off its passenger; Danielle Simmons exited that black Jeep to enter
- 10 -
J-A13027-20
the hotel; and Detective Wright observed Simmons exit the Jeep with her
phone in her hand at the same time he was exchanging text messages from
the person the detective had planned to meet at the hotel for drugs and sex.
Detective Wright recovered drugs from the same person dropped off at the
hotel by the driver of the Jeep. Detectives Wright and Laverty conveyed all
these facts to the detectives in the surveillance vehicle waiting outside the
hotel, who had been continuously watching the black Jeep. After receiving
that critical information, the patrol officers stopped the Jeep. Once Detective
Laverty saw drugs in plain view on the center console of the Jeep, he had
probable cause to arrest the occupants. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 23
A.3d 544, 552 (Pa. Super. 2011) (under plain view doctrine, police may seize
item without warrant where they view item from lawful vantage point,
incriminating nature of object is immediately apparent, and have lawful right
of access to object).
Considering the facts of this matter, including the detectives’
experience, and giving due weight to the reasonable inferences from their
investigation in this matter, we conclude that the patrol officers properly
stopped the black Jeep, where they had reasonable suspicion that criminal
activity was afoot. See Cook, supra at 676 (“due weight” given to officer’s
specific reasonable inferences drawn from facts in light of his or her
experience); see also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 663 A.2d 787 (Pa.
Super. 1995) (officer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s car after
seeing defendant throw plastic baggies out of car window, corner of baggies
- 11 -
J-A13027-20
had been cut; officer knew from experience that corners of baggies are used
for packaging drugs). Here, the stop was based upon “an articulable,
particularized suspicion, based on objective physical evidence and a trained
officer[s’] reasonable inferences therefrom, that a specific crime . . . was being
committed.” Epps, 608 A.2d 1097.
The certified record supports the suppression court’s factual findings and
we find no error in the court’s inferences and legal conclusions drawn from
those findings. The court, therefore, properly denied Haynes’ suppression
motion. Gould, supra, Griffin, supra.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/30/2020
- 12 -