25 / 32
PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION
|
BULLETIN
|
WINTER 2016
|
25
www.pachiefs.orgLEGAL UPDATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
2016, Defendant told his fiancée, Valerie,
that he had told the officers that he had been
attempting to take the shotgun to the police
district. (Id. at 201-204, Gov't's Ex. 18 at 3.)
At approximately 7:10 p.m., Officers Filler
and Lane were driving northbound on the
3000 block of North Water Street, when
they noticed two individuals, one of whom
was Defendant, standing behind a van that
was parked on the sidewalk in violation of a
traffic law,2 with both of its rear swing-out
doors open. (Id. at 15, 17, 19-21, 123-24.)
Although the street was poorly lit, Officer
Filler stated that the light from the patrol
car's headlights illuminated the back of the
van, allowing him to see into the back of the
van from his vantage point in the driver's
seat. (Id. at 18, 20, 23, 93.) Officer Filler
testified that "as we were traveling I observed
what I believed to be a stock of a shotgun or
a long rifle wood stock" in the back area of
the van. (Id. at 21.) Officer Filler immedi-
ately told Officer Lane, "'Oh, sh!t, he has a
shotgun.'" (Id. at 22.)
As Officers Filler and Lane approached the
van in their patrol car, they observed Defen-
dant close the van doors and walk away from
the van in the direction of the officers, while
the second individual walked away.3(Id. at
22, 54-55, 94, 98.) Officer Filler stopped
the patrol car when he [*4] was four to six
feet from Defendant. (Id. at 28.) When Of-
ficer Filler exited the patrol car, he observed
Defendant drop two 12-gauge shotgun shells
onto the sidewalk. (Id. at 28-29, 58-59, 129-
30.) Officer Lane retrieved the ammunition,
and Officer Filler stopped Defendant and
frisked him for weapons. (Id. at 23, 28, 59,
94, 100, 112.) Officer Filler then detained
Defendant in the back of the patrol car and
asked him about the van. (Id. at 23.)
2Although the officers' post-arrest report
(Def.'s Ex. 6) states only that Defendant had
committed a parking violation, the Govern-
ment has stated that Defendant violated 75
Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 3353(a)(1)(ii).
3The second individual was never identified.
(9/22/16 N.T. at 20.)
Defendant informed Officer Filler that he
was the owner of the van. (Id. at 23, 64.)
Officer Filler proceeded to walk over to the
van while Officer Lane remained with De-
fendant. (Id. at 64, 94.) The engine of the
van was running throughout the encounter,
although Officer Filler did not notice that
the van was turned on until after Defendant
had been detained. (Id. at 69.) Using a flash-
light, Officer Filler looked through the van
window and observed a shotgun behind the
rear seat of the van. (Id. at 67.) Officer Filler
attempted to open the door to the van, but
found that it was locked. (Id. at 23-24.) He
walked back to the patrol car and told Offi-
cer Lane that there was a shotgun in the van.
(Id. at 24.) Officer Filler testified:
I went back to this Defendant. I let him
know; that if he had a key, to let us have it.
We were going to get into the van. If I had
to break the windows, we were going to get
in. The car was running, at that point. You
know, there was a shotgun in the car and the
car's running. He just discarded two shotgun
shells. I mean, I was going to do what we had
to do to get that [shotgun].
(Id.) Although Defendant initially told the
officers that he did not have a key to the
van, he eventually produced a set of keys
from his right sock. (Id. at 95, 101.) Offi-
cer Lane unlocked the van and recovered a
double-barreled shotgun with a wood stock
from the rear of the van. (Id. at 102.) After
recovering the shotgun, the officers hand-
cuffed Defendant, placed him under arrest,
and transported him to the police station.
(Id. at 36, 131.)
While Officers Filler and Lane were trans-
porting Defendant, the three men had a
conversation because Defendant was con-
cerned about the charges he faced. (Id. at
37.) While the officers denied interrogating
Defendant during the drive to the station,
they reported that Defendant told them that
"he thought that if the gun was not loaded,
that it wasn't as much of an offense." (Id. at
37-38, 106.) Defendant also told the officers
that "he didn't think he could get in trouble
if the shotgun shells were separated from the
shotgun[;]" and that he had been trying to
sell the shotgun for $100.00. [*6] (Id. at 38,
106.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
"A defendant may move to suppress evidence
in the court where the trial will occur, as
Rule 12 provides." Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(h).
On a motion to suppress, the burden of
proof is initially on the defendant who seeks
suppression of the evidence. United States v.
Johnson, 63 F.3d 242, 245 (3d Cir. 1995)
(citing United States v. Acosta, 965 F.2d
1248, 1256 n.9 (3d Cir.
1992)). "[O]nce the defendant has estab-
lished a basis for his motion, i.e., the search
or seizure was conducted without a warrant,
the burden shifts to the government" to es-
tablish by a preponderance of the evidence
that the evidence sought to be suppressed is
admissible. Id. (citing United States v. McK-
neely, 6 F.3d 1447, 1453 (10th Cir. 1993));
see also United States v. Lowe, 791 F.3d 424,
432 n.4 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing Johnson, 63
F.3d at 245).
When evaluating a motion to suppress, the
credibility of witnesses is assessed by the
trial court. United States v. Demings, 787
F. Supp. 2d 320, 326 (D.N.J. 2011) (citing
United States v. Davis, 514 F.2d 1085, 1088
(7th Cir. 1975)). The court "can accept or
reject any or all of a witness's testimony."
Id. (citing United States v. Murphy, 402 F.
Supp. 2d 561, 569-70 (W.D. Pa. 2005)).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant contends that the shotgun seized
during the search of his van and his incrimi-
nating post-arrest statements should be sup-
pressed either as (1) the poisonous fruits of an
invalid investigatory stop, or in the alterna-
tive, as (2) evidence subject to the exclusion-
ary rule as the result of a warrantless search
and seizure lacking probable cause. The
Fourth Amendment guarantees "[t]he right
of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreason-
able searches and seizures" and that "no War-
rants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . .
." U.S. Const. amend. IV. Ordinarily, under
the Fourth Amendment, the government
must obtain a warrant prior to searching ar-
eas in which an individual possesses a rea-
sonable expectation of privacy. United States
v. Herrold, 962 F.2d 1131, 1137 (3d Cir.
1992). The Supreme Court has explained
that "searches conducted outside the judicial
process, without prior approval by judge or
magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the
Fourth Amendment-subject only to a few
specifically established and well-delineated
exceptions." Horton v. California, 496 U.S.
128, 133 n.4 (1990) (quoting Katz v. United
States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)). Evidence
obtained during a warrantless search is ad-
missible at trial only if the search and seizure
were permissible under one of the recognized
exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's war-