Opinion
J-A32019-16 No. 2253 EDA 2015
03-09-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. JOEL G. INGS
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order June 26, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011613-2012 BEFORE: DUBOW J., RANSOM, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. --------
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the June 26, 2015 order granting Appellee's motion to suppress physical evidence. We affirm.
In September 2012, Joel G. Ings, Appellee, was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession with intent to distribute. In June 2014, Appellee filed a motion to suppress physical evidence, namely, narcotics recovered in conjunction with the arrest. In the motion, Appellee averred that police lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop him, and the narcotics discarded in his ensuing flight from police were the fruits of an illegal seizure. A suppression hearing was held on June 26, 2015, before the Honorable Sean F. Kennedy. That same day, upon hearing the testimony of the Commonwealth's only witness, arresting officer Jeffrey Opalski ("Officer Opalski"), the court granted Appellee's motion to suppress. Thereafter, in July 2015, the Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal and a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The lower court reviewed the suppression hearing transcript and issued supplemental findings of facts and conclusions of law in January 2016. In February 2016, the court issued a responsive opinion, which incorporated its findings of facts and conclusions of law.
35 Pa.C.S. §§ 780-112(a)(16), and 780-112(a)(30), respectively.
On appeal, the Commonwealth raises the following issue for our review:
1. Where officers patrolling a high[-]crime area asked [Appellee] to stop, and he responded by fleeing on his bicycle, did the lower court improperly suppress the crack cocaine that he abandoned mid-flight?Commonwealth's Brief at 4.
When reviewing the propriety of a suppression order, we are required to determine whether the record supports the suppression court's factual findings and whether the inferences and legal conclusions drawn by the suppression court from those findings are appropriate. Commonwealth v. Peterson , 17 A.3d 935, 937 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citing Commonwealth v. Moyer , 954 A.2d 659, 663 (Pa. Super. 2008). Where the record supports the factual findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error. Id.
On appeal, the Commonwealth raises a single issue for our review, alleging the court improperly suppressed the narcotics Appellee discarded in flight from the police. We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion authored by the Honorable Sean F. Kennedy of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, filed February 18, 2016. We conclude that Judge Kennedy's comprehensive opinion is dispositive of the issue presented in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt the opinion as our own for purposes of further appellate review and affirm the order granting Appellee's suppression motion on that basis.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/9/2017
Image materials not available for display.