Commonwealth v. Bumbarger

Pennsylvania Case Law Alert with Instructor, Dan Foster

This case was decided on 3/16/20 in the Superior Court.

Facts of the Case-

On April 1, 2018, a PSP Trooper was on patrol in Centre County when he passed a white Chevrolet Impala. The Trooper had prior knowledge of a local drug user, Dameon Bumbarger, who owns a white Chevy Impala. He also believed Bumbarger was wanted. A quick NCIC check on his MDT revealed a full extradition warrant for Bumbarger out of Colorado. The Trooper got behind the vehicle, ran the plate, and found it was registered to Bumbarger. The Trooper followed the vehicle and observed “a white male with short hair approximately matching Bumbarger’s description driving the vehicle. Trooper Murarik then stopped the vehicle and approached it. The operator was identified as Bumbarger and taken into custody.

After arresting Bumbarger, the Trooper approached the passenger and identified her as another known drug user, Roberta Sheaffer. The Trooper testified that Sheaffer appeared to be under the influence of drugs, so he asked her to step out of the vehicle so he could question her. As Sheaffer exited the vehicle, the Trooper observed used syringes under her seat. A PC search of the vehicle was conducted which yielded numerous drugs and two firearms. Bumbarger was a person not to possess.

On appeal, Bumbarger presented the following issues worthy of discussion:

1.?“Did the Trial Court err in denying Appellant's Motion to Suppress, which argued that there was no basis for the stop of [Appellant] as the Trooper who stopped [Appellant] was not able to determine if it was [Appellant] in the vehicle and instead merely assumed he was in the vehicle and merely assumed that the warrant was valid?”

2.?“Did the Trial Court err in denying Appellant's Motion to Suppress, which argued that the continued detention of [Appellant's] passenger was unlawful as it lacked a renewed showing of reasonable suspicion and it was only after the Trooper had the passenger step out of the vehicle that he alleged he had probable cause to then search the vehicle?”

3.?“Did the Trial Court err in denying Appellant's Motion to Suppress, which argued that the two syringes the Trooper claimed he observed when he had the passenger step out of the vehicle did not possess an incriminating character that was immediately apparent, and thus, would not have justified a probable cause search of the vehicle?”

Holding-

1.?“Because of his prior involvement with Appellant, Trooper Murarik was familiar with Appellant and his vehicle. The driver of the vehicle resembled Appellant. The registration reflected that the white Chevy Impala was registered to Appellant. Thus, Trooper Murarik had probable cause to stop Appellant's vehicle and arrest Appellant. As stated previously, the notification by N.C.I.C. that Appellant had an outstanding active arrest warrant provided Trooper Murarik with probable cause to stop Appellant. Thus, any argument that Trooper Murarik erred by "assuming" that the warrant was valid and therefore, lacked authority to stop Appellant, is meritless.”

2. “In his next issue, Appellant asserts that because the reason for the stop had already terminated when Trooper Murarik asked the passenger to exit the vehicle, such continued detention of the passenger was improper. Appellant's Brief at 38. Specifically, Appellant asserts that following the arrest of Appellant and his removal from the vehicle, the purpose of the stop was terminated.?Id.?Thus, he maintains the continued detention of the passenger and direction to have her exit the vehicle was unlawful.?Id.?at 38-43. Accordingly, Appellant posits that the syringes and any evidence resulting from the search of the vehicle must be suppressed.?Id.?at 43.

A forcible stop of a motor vehicle by a police officer constitutes a seizure of a driver and the occupants.?Commonwealth v. Campbell,?862 A.2d 659, 663 (Pa. Super. 2004). This Court has explained "that police may request both drivers and their passengers to alight from a lawfully stopped car without reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot."?Commonwealth v. Brown,?654 A.2d 1096, 1102 (Pa. Super. 1995)?(quoting?Pennsylvania v. Mimms,?434 U.S. 106 (1977)). Furthermore, police can require both the driver and the passengers in a lawfully stopped vehicle to identify themselves regardless of whether there is reasonable suspicion that the passengers are engaged in criminal activity.?Campbell,?862 A.2d at 664-665.

In the case?sub judice,?the vehicle was lawfully stopped. As a result, Trooper Murarik was authorized to request the passenger to exit the vehicle and to ask the passenger for identification.”

3.?"Lastly, concerning the PC search, “here, Trooper Murarik approached the passenger of the vehicle as part of the lawful stop. Trooper Murarik knew Sheaffer, and knew of her drug use and sales history. Sheaffer's appearance reflected that she was under the influence of drugs. Moreover, when Trooper Murarik lawfully asked Sheaffer to exit the vehicle in accordance with the lawful stop, he observed drug paraphernalia in plain view. Accordingly, we conclude that Trooper Murarik did not unlawfully detain Sheaffer or ask her to exit the vehicle. Furthermore, given his observation of Sheaffer's appearance, his knowledge of Sheaffer's drug-use history, and the observation of the syringes, Trooper Murarik had reason to suspect criminal activity.?Green,?168 A.3d at 186-187. Thus, Trooper Murarik had probable cause to search the vehicle.?Id.?at 186.”"