Com. v. Lesane, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Com. v. Lesane, T.

DecidedJune 8, 2020

Docket1876 MDA 2019

StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Lesane, T. (Com. v. Lesane, T.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Com. v. Lesane, T., (Pa. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

J-A11001-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : TAJ AARON LESANE : No. 1876 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered November 1, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-18-CR-0000253-2019

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED: JUNE 8, 2020

The Commonwealth appeals from the order entered in the Clinton

County Court of Common Pleas. The order granted Taj Aaron Lesane’s motion

to suppress evidence found during a search of his car after he was stopped

for a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code. We reverse the suppression court’s

order and remand for further proceedings.

Pennsylvania State Troopers Andrew Adams and Dennis Twigg were

traveling west bound, at night, on Interstate 80 when they noticed a black

Dodge Challenger weaving and swerving within its lane of travel. The troopers

decided to follow the vehicle because they suspected the driver was either

under the influence or text messaging. Thereafter, they observed the Dodge

Challenger cross over the fog line twice in violation of the Vehicle Code. The

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A11001-20

troopers planned to initiate a traffic stop, but waited three miles until Exit 173

due to safety concerns. There, they activated the emergency lights and

effectuated a stop.

Trooper Adams and Trooper Twigg exited their cruiser and approached

Lesane to ask for his license. As they did so, they noticed the smell of

marijuana emanating from the driver and passenger sides of the vehicle.

Based on this observation, the troopers conducted a search of the vehicle and

discovered marijuana, heroin, methamphetamines, a digital scale, and two

knives. The troopers arrested Lesane.

Lesane was charged with possession with intent to deliver, possession

of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, driving under suspension,

failure to keep right, and disregarding traffic lanes.1 He filed a pretrial motion

to suppress all evidence related to the stop, arguing that police lacked

probable cause to stop his vehicle. The suppression court held a hearing on

the motion, and ultimately granted it. Thereafter, the Commonwealth filed a

timely appeal challenging the order granting Lesane’s suppression motion.

On appeal, the Commonwealth asserts that the suppression court erred

in finding that Trooper Adams and Trooper Twigg lacked the requisite level of

suspicion to stop Lesane. See Appellant’s Brief, at 4. Specifically, the

Commonwealth contends that the troopers had probable cause to stop Lesane ____________________________________________

135 P.S. § 780-113 (a)(30); 35 Pa.C.S.A. § 780-113(a)(31); 35 P.S. § 780- 113(a)(32); 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a); 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301(a); and 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3309(1).

-2- J-A11001-20

for disregarding traffic lanes pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3309(1) of the Vehicle

Code. See Appellant’s Brief, at 10. However, even if probable cause did not

exist, the Commonwealth argues that the troopers had reasonable suspicion

to stop Lesane and investigate whether he was driving under the influence

(“DUI”) or texting while driving. See id., at 4.

Our standard of review when the Commonwealth appeals from a

suppression order is well settled. A reviewing court must consider only the

defendant’s evidence and so much of the Commonwealth’s evidence as

remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole.

See Commonwealth v. Hemingway, 192 A.3d 126, 129 (Pa. Super. 2018).

Further, in reviewing a suppression ruling, we must ascertain whether the

record supports the factual findings of the suppression court and then

determine if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error. See

Commonwealth v. Dean, 940 A.2d 514, 516 (Pa. Super. 2008).

We first address whether Trooper Adams and Trooper Twigg had

reasonable suspicion to stop Lesane. If a police officer possesses reasonable

suspicion that a violation of the Vehicle Code is occurring or has occurred, he

may stop the vehicle involved for the purpose of obtaining information

necessary to enforce the provisions of the Code. See 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 6308(b).

Reasonable suspicion is a relatively low standard and depends on the

information possessed by police and its degree of reliability in the totality of

the circumstances. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa.

2010). Thus, in order to justify the stop, an officer must be able to point to

-3- J-A11001-20

specific and articulable facts which led him to reasonably suspect a violation

of the Vehicle Code. See Commonwealth v. Holmes, 14 A.3d 89, 95 (Pa.

2011). The standard for assessing whether a given set of observations

constitutes reasonable suspicion is an objective one, based on the totality of

the circumstances. See id.

In the present case, the suppression court found that the troopers did

not have reasonable suspicion to believe Lesane was driving under the

influence. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/01/2019, at 6. The court emphasized

that there was no testimony offered as to whether either trooper had training

and experience with DUI investigations. See id. Even more concerning to the

court was that, after the second crossover, the troopers followed Lesane for

an additional three miles and did not observe any motor vehicle infractions.

See id. Furthermore, although the troopers’ cruiser was equipped with a video

recording device, the court noted that the video did not include footage of the

alleged Vehicle Code violations. See id. As such, the court concluded that the

troopers did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Lesane. See id.

Here, as discussed above, Trooper Adams and Trooper Twigg, after

entering onto Interstate 80, noticed Lesane’s vehicle weaving and swerving

within its lane of travel. See N.T., Suppression Hearing, 10/22/19, at 22. As

they followed Lesane, the troopers observed the passenger tires of Lesane’s

vehicle cross the fog line twice within the span of a mile. See id., at 7, 31.

Because of his training and experience, which included DUI stops on the

interstate, Trooper Adams suspected Lesane was driving impaired or on his

-4- J-A11001-20

phone. See id., at 7. As a result, the troopers conducted a traffic stop to

further investigate whether there was a violation of the Vehicle Code. See id.,

at 7.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Trooper Adams and Trooper

Twigg had reasonable suspicion to stop Lesane and investigate whether he

was driving under the influence or texting while driving. The fact that the

troopers followed Lesane for an additional three miles and did not observe any

other motor vehicle infractions is not fatal to this conclusion. Even a

combination of innocent factors, when viewed together, may warrant further

investigation by the police. See Holmes, 14 A.3d at 96.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI