This Court granted review “to determine whether the courts below erred in concluding the interaction between and Officer Falconio did not ripen into an investigative detention prior to the officer detecting indicia of intoxication.” Majority Op. At this juncture, it is undisputed Appellant was seized, and in my view, legally seized. When Appellant attempted to exit the vehicle, Officer Falconio, fearing for his safety, pushed the door shut and requested Appellant roll down the window. Based on these suspicions Officer Falconio approached the vehicle, noted the lights and engine of the car he had just observed driving into the lot were now off, and knocked on the driver’s window. I was simply checking to see why a car drove behind two dark, closed businesses at 3 o’clock in the morning, making sure there wasn’t drug activity or an attempted burglary of the pizza shop.
Officer Falconio articulated, “I wasn’t conducting a traffic stop.
When the vehicle did not exit he pulled behind the building “to see what the occupant or occupants of the vehicle was doing.” Id. Officer Falconio testified he drove in the direction of the parking lot keeping an eye on the building for the vehicle to see if it would reemerge from behind the building. He testified his attention was drawn to the vehicle because it was 2:56 a.m. On January 10, 2016, Officer Falconio was working the night shift when he witnessed a white Dodge Dart turn into a parking lot for Toby Tyler, a train hobby store, and Showcase Pizza. At the suppression hearing, Officer Falconio testified that he was a patrolman for the Borough of Pleasant Hills, and his duties included responding to 911 calls, proactive policing, DUI enforcement, and business checks in the district. However, because I conclude that Officer Falconio articulated the required reasonable suspicion, I respectfully dissent.
I further agree that Officer Falconio needed to articulate reasonable suspicion for the seizure to be constitutionally reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. ARGUED: OctoCONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION JUSTICE MUNDY DECIDED: MAI agree with the Majority that Appellant was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when Officer Falconio would not permit him to exit his vehicle. 14, affirming the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered Augat No. Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered Jat No. EDWARD THOMAS ADAMS, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v.
0 kommentar(er)
