Opinion
J-S68033-19 No. 867 WDA 2019
01-17-2020
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. DENNIS KREASHKO Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Suppression Order Entered May 6, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-03-CR-0000122-2018 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order entered in the Armstrong County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the suppression motion of Appellee, Dennis Kreashko. We affirm.
The Commonwealth timely filed a notice of appeal on June 4, 2019, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) (allowing Commonwealth to appeal as of right in criminal case from pretrial order, where Commonwealth certifies in notice of appeal that order will terminate or substantially handicap prosecution).
In its opinions, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
The Commonwealth raises one issue for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SUPPRESSED THE EVIDENCE IN THIS MATTER, FINDING THAT [APPELLEE] HAD BEEN UNLAWFULLY DETAINED WHERE [APPELLEE'S] VEHICLE WAS LAWFULLY DETAINED AS IT
WAS IMPROPERLY LICENSED AND WAS GOING TO BE TOWED AND THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT CONSIDER [APPELLEE'S] CONSENT TO SEARCH THE TRUNK OF THE VEHICLE IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT HIS VEHICLE WAS GOING TO BE TOWED?(Commonwealth's Brief at 4) (emphasis omitted).
When the Commonwealth appeals from a suppression order, the relevant scope and standard of review are:
We consider only the evidence from the defendant's witnesses together with the evidence of the prosecution that, when read in the context of the entire record, remains uncontradicted. As long as there is some evidence to support them, we are bound by the suppression court's findings of fact. Most importantly, we are not at liberty to reject a finding of fact which is based on credibility.
Commonwealth v. Parker , 152 A.3d 309, 315 (Pa.Super. 2016).
Commonwealth v. Goldsborough , 31 A.3d 299, 305 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 616 Pa. 651, 49 A.3d 442 (2012) (internal citation omitted). "The suppression court's conclusions of law, however, are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts." Id. (internal citation omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the Commonwealth's brief, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable James J. Panchik, we conclude the Commonwealth's issue merits no relief. The trial court opinions comprehensively discuss and properly dispose of the question presented. ( See Suppression Memorandum and Order, filed May 6, 2019, at 6-10; Rule 1925(a) Opinion, filed June 25, 2019, at 3-6) (finding: police engaged in continued detention of Appellee after initial stop of Appellee's vehicle was already complete; Appellee was not free to leave at this point; although Officer Antal testified that Appellee was asked to exit vehicle because it was going to be impounded, Deputy Gahagan's testimony and officers' conduct, after Appellee had exited vehicle, indicated that purpose was to continue to investigate whether Appellee was driving under influence; Appellee's pupils not responding to light, coupled with Appellee's movements in vehicle, did not provide particularized suspicion that exceeds mere hunch or possibility of criminal activity; court specifically found Officer Antal's testimony at preliminary hearing not credible, particularly where defense counsel did not have opportunity to cross-examine Officer Antal after Deputy Gahagan offered contradictory testimony more than one year later at suppression hearing; all additional information supporting Appellee's eventual arrest was discovered after officers removed Appellee from his vehicle; in other words, information officers had at time they asked Appellee to exit his vehicle was insufficient to support continued detention; further, officers decided to impound Appellee's vehicle only after they had already detained Appellee; Commonwealth offered no argument that Appellee's continued detention was lawful, so court properly suppressed all evidence as fruit of poisonous tree; Commonwealth did not raise, brief, or present any testimony at suppression hearing to support its now-proffered "inevitable discovery" argument; moreover, Commonwealth did not establish that police followed standard policy for conducting inventory searches of impounded vehicles). Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court's opinions.
Appellee declined to file a brief.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/17/2020
Image materials not available for display.