J-S45021-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ALONZO E. COOPER : : Appellant : No. 899 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 30, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002237-2022
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 25, 2025
Appellant, Alonzo E. Cooper, appeals from the May 30, 2024 judgment
of sentence entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas following his
conviction of two counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance and one
count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.1 Appellant challenges the denial
of his motion to suppress evidence. After careful review, we are constrained
to reverse the order denying the suppression motion because the record does
not support the suppression court’s application of the doctrine of inevitable
discovery.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On January
21, 2022, Exeter Township police officers, including Officer Jacob Auman,
responded to the scene of a reported collision of a silver car with the median
____________________________________________
1 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16), and (a)(32), respectively. J-S45021-24
on the westbound side of Route 422. The officers initially observed a field of
debris, but no vehicle. Officer Auman then noticed slow moving-traffic in the
right lane of the highway and smoke coming from a silver sedan that matched
the description of the accident-involved vehicle and was traveling at 20 miles
per hour or less. The front bumper of the sedan appeared to be dragging on
the ground, the windshield was heavily cracked, and smoke emanated from
the engine compartment. Because the sedan was delaying traffic and out of
concern that the vehicle, which Officer Auman believed was the one involved
in the reported crash, was going to catch fire, Officer Auman activated the
lights of his marked patrol car and pulled the car over.
When the vehicle stopped, Officer Auman observed three occupants—
the driver, a front-seat passenger, and a rear passenger seated behind the
driver—all of whom were “shuffling around, moving around a lot.” N.T.
Suppression Hr’g, 10/23/23, at 6. The driver and front-seat passenger, later
identified as Appellant, then opened the car doors and attempted to exit the
car, whereupon Officer Auman ordered the men to remain inside. Officer
Auman and firefighters approached from the passenger side and instructed
the driver to turn the vehicle off.
Officer Auman then began gathering information for his crash report,
during which time he continued to observe the vehicle’s occupants moving
and shuffling around inside. In response to Officer Auman’s questions,
Appellant—hesitating a few times—identified himself as “Dale Cooper” with a
birth date of February 9, 1963, and indicated that he did not have identification
-2- J-S45021-24
on his person. Officer Auman searched for “Dale Cooper” in his patrol car
computer, but did not find any record of a person with that name and date of
birth, which indicated to him that Appellant had given him a false
identification.
Officer Auman returned to the vehicle, planning to transport Appellant
to the sheriff’s office for a Live Scan to aid in identifying Appellant. Officer
Auman asked Appellant to exit the car, which Appellant did. Officer Auman
then handcuffed Appellant and searched him, discovering 5 bags of crack
cocaine, 1 bag of heroin, and a cut straw with white powder residue.
On May 9, 2022, the Commonwealth, based on the evidence seized from
the search, charged Appellant with three counts of Possession of a Controlled
Substance and one count each of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.2 On
November 14, 2022, Appellant filed an omnibus pretrial motion seeking to
suppress the physical evidence that Officer Auman discovered pursuant to the
search.
On October 23, 2022, the suppression court held a hearing on
Appellant’s motion at which Officer Auman testified in accordance with the
above facts. He also testified that, after he handcuffed Appellant, Appellant
told him there was an outstanding bench warrant for his arrest because he
had failed to pay child support. Officer Auman testified, however, that he
2 The Commonwealth also charged Appellant with False Identification to Law
Enforcement. The trial court subsequently granted Appellant’s petition for habeas corpus relief with respect to this charge resulting in its dismissal.
-3- J-S45021-24
would not have arrested Appellant for unpaid child support. In particular,
Officer Auman testified that “[w]e wouldn’t take [Appellant] into the
courthouse here to be seen by a judge for that violation. I don’t even think
that at that point in time they would have accepted him down at the sheriff’s
department for that.” Id. at 14. During his re-cross examination, Officer
Auman explained that non-payment of child support is a non-NCIC offense,
for which officers did not typically “take [violators] into the Sheriff’s
Department right away.” Id. at 15. He also indicated that COVID restrictions
in place at the time may have played a role in the decision not to take violators
into custody. Id.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the suppression court denied
Appellant’s suppression motion. Notably, the court did not deny the motion
to suppress on the grounds that Officer Auman’s search while Appellant was
handcuffed was legal. Instead, applying the doctrine of inevitable discovery,
the court concluded that Officer Auman would have obtained the contraband
when he searched Appellant incident to Appellant’s arrest on the outstanding
warrant for failure to pay child support. In other words, the trial court
reasoned that because Officer Auman could have arrested Appellant pursuant
to the bench warrant and would have then conducted a legal search incident
to arrest, the doctrine of inevitable discovery legalized the otherwise unlawful
search that occurred when Appellant was handcuffed.
-4- J-S45021-24
On May 23, 2024, Appellant appeared for a bench trial, after which the
trial court convicted him of two counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance
and one count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.
On May 30, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate
term of 141 days to 23 months of incarceration, with 141 days of credit for
time served. Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion.
This appeal followed.3
Appellant raises the following issue on appeal: “Did the lower court err
in failing to suppress evidence in this matter based upon its determination of
‘inevitable discovery[?]’” Appellant’s Brief at 8 (unnecessary capitalization
omitted).
“Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court’s denial
of a suppression motion is whether the factual findings are supported by the
record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct.”
Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323, 327 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation
omitted). “Once a motion to suppress evidence has been filed, it is the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S45021-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ALONZO E. COOPER : : Appellant : No. 899 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 30, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002237-2022
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 25, 2025
Appellant, Alonzo E. Cooper, appeals from the May 30, 2024 judgment
of sentence entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas following his
conviction of two counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance and one
count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.1 Appellant challenges the denial
of his motion to suppress evidence. After careful review, we are constrained
to reverse the order denying the suppression motion because the record does
not support the suppression court’s application of the doctrine of inevitable
discovery.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On January
21, 2022, Exeter Township police officers, including Officer Jacob Auman,
responded to the scene of a reported collision of a silver car with the median
____________________________________________
1 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16), and (a)(32), respectively. J-S45021-24
on the westbound side of Route 422. The officers initially observed a field of
debris, but no vehicle. Officer Auman then noticed slow moving-traffic in the
right lane of the highway and smoke coming from a silver sedan that matched
the description of the accident-involved vehicle and was traveling at 20 miles
per hour or less. The front bumper of the sedan appeared to be dragging on
the ground, the windshield was heavily cracked, and smoke emanated from
the engine compartment. Because the sedan was delaying traffic and out of
concern that the vehicle, which Officer Auman believed was the one involved
in the reported crash, was going to catch fire, Officer Auman activated the
lights of his marked patrol car and pulled the car over.
When the vehicle stopped, Officer Auman observed three occupants—
the driver, a front-seat passenger, and a rear passenger seated behind the
driver—all of whom were “shuffling around, moving around a lot.” N.T.
Suppression Hr’g, 10/23/23, at 6. The driver and front-seat passenger, later
identified as Appellant, then opened the car doors and attempted to exit the
car, whereupon Officer Auman ordered the men to remain inside. Officer
Auman and firefighters approached from the passenger side and instructed
the driver to turn the vehicle off.
Officer Auman then began gathering information for his crash report,
during which time he continued to observe the vehicle’s occupants moving
and shuffling around inside. In response to Officer Auman’s questions,
Appellant—hesitating a few times—identified himself as “Dale Cooper” with a
birth date of February 9, 1963, and indicated that he did not have identification
-2- J-S45021-24
on his person. Officer Auman searched for “Dale Cooper” in his patrol car
computer, but did not find any record of a person with that name and date of
birth, which indicated to him that Appellant had given him a false
identification.
Officer Auman returned to the vehicle, planning to transport Appellant
to the sheriff’s office for a Live Scan to aid in identifying Appellant. Officer
Auman asked Appellant to exit the car, which Appellant did. Officer Auman
then handcuffed Appellant and searched him, discovering 5 bags of crack
cocaine, 1 bag of heroin, and a cut straw with white powder residue.
On May 9, 2022, the Commonwealth, based on the evidence seized from
the search, charged Appellant with three counts of Possession of a Controlled
Substance and one count each of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.2 On
November 14, 2022, Appellant filed an omnibus pretrial motion seeking to
suppress the physical evidence that Officer Auman discovered pursuant to the
search.
On October 23, 2022, the suppression court held a hearing on
Appellant’s motion at which Officer Auman testified in accordance with the
above facts. He also testified that, after he handcuffed Appellant, Appellant
told him there was an outstanding bench warrant for his arrest because he
had failed to pay child support. Officer Auman testified, however, that he
2 The Commonwealth also charged Appellant with False Identification to Law
Enforcement. The trial court subsequently granted Appellant’s petition for habeas corpus relief with respect to this charge resulting in its dismissal.
-3- J-S45021-24
would not have arrested Appellant for unpaid child support. In particular,
Officer Auman testified that “[w]e wouldn’t take [Appellant] into the
courthouse here to be seen by a judge for that violation. I don’t even think
that at that point in time they would have accepted him down at the sheriff’s
department for that.” Id. at 14. During his re-cross examination, Officer
Auman explained that non-payment of child support is a non-NCIC offense,
for which officers did not typically “take [violators] into the Sheriff’s
Department right away.” Id. at 15. He also indicated that COVID restrictions
in place at the time may have played a role in the decision not to take violators
into custody. Id.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the suppression court denied
Appellant’s suppression motion. Notably, the court did not deny the motion
to suppress on the grounds that Officer Auman’s search while Appellant was
handcuffed was legal. Instead, applying the doctrine of inevitable discovery,
the court concluded that Officer Auman would have obtained the contraband
when he searched Appellant incident to Appellant’s arrest on the outstanding
warrant for failure to pay child support. In other words, the trial court
reasoned that because Officer Auman could have arrested Appellant pursuant
to the bench warrant and would have then conducted a legal search incident
to arrest, the doctrine of inevitable discovery legalized the otherwise unlawful
search that occurred when Appellant was handcuffed.
-4- J-S45021-24
On May 23, 2024, Appellant appeared for a bench trial, after which the
trial court convicted him of two counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance
and one count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.
On May 30, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate
term of 141 days to 23 months of incarceration, with 141 days of credit for
time served. Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion.
This appeal followed.3
Appellant raises the following issue on appeal: “Did the lower court err
in failing to suppress evidence in this matter based upon its determination of
‘inevitable discovery[?]’” Appellant’s Brief at 8 (unnecessary capitalization
omitted).
“Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court’s denial
of a suppression motion is whether the factual findings are supported by the
record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct.”
Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323, 327 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation
omitted). “Once a motion to suppress evidence has been filed, it is the
Commonwealth’s burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the challenged evidence was not obtained in violation of the defendant’s
rights.” Commonwealth v. Wallace, 42 A.3d 1040, 1047-48 (Pa. 2012).
3 Appellant filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. In lieu of filing a Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court directed this Court to the December 12, 2023 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for its reasons in support of its denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress.
-5- J-S45021-24
Our scope of review of the suppression court’s factual findings is limited
to the record from the suppression hearing. Commonwealth v. Barr, 266
A.3d 25, 39 (Pa. 2021). “Where the record supports the findings of the
suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the
legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error.” Commonwealth v. Cephus,
208 A.3d 1096, 1098 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). We defer to the
suppression court, “as factfinder[,] to pass on the credibility of witnesses and
the weight to be given to their testimony.” Commonwealth v. Elmobdy,
823 A.2d 180, 183 (Pa. Super. 2003).
Appellant’s issue involves the application of the inevitable discovery
rule. Under the inevitable discovery rule, “[i]f the prosecution can establish
by a preponderance of the evidence that the illegally obtained evidence
ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means, the
evidence is admissible.” Commonwealth v. Bailey, 986 A.2d 860, 862 (Pa.
Super. 2009). This Court has cautioned, however, that “the inevitable
discovery doctrine is not a substitute for the warrant requirement. Police must
demonstrate that the evidence would have been discovered absent the police
misconduct, not simply that they somehow could have lawfully discovered it.”
Commonwealth v. Perel, 107 A.3d 185, 196 (Pa. Super. 2014) (emphasis
in original).
Appellant claims that the suppression court erred in relying on the
inevitable discovery doctrine when denying his suppression motion because
Officer Auman testified that he would not have taken Appellant into custody
-6- J-S45021-24
for an active warrant based on unpaid child support. Appellant’s Brief at 22-
27.
Our review of the record confirms that Officer Auman testified that he
would not have arrested Appellant based on the active warrant for unpaid child
support. In other words, even if Officer Auman could have lawfully discovered
the contraband if he had searched Appellant incident to an arrest for unpaid
child support, because Officer Auman testified that he would not have arrested
Appellant pursuant to the outstanding warrant, the Commonwealth did not
demonstrate that Officer Auman would have discovered the contraband.
Thus, the record does not support the suppression court’s finding that Officer
Auman would have inevitably discovered contraband on Appellant’s person
incident to his arrest. The suppression court, thus, erred in denying
Appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from a search of his
person based on its application of the inevitable discovery rule.
We, therefore, vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence, reverse the
order denying Appellant’s motion to suppress, and remand for further
proceedings.
-7- J-S45021-24
Judgment of sentence vacated. Order reversed. Case remanded.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 02/25/2025
-8-