conclusion of the suppression hearing in Pennsylvania

2021At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Savino’s motion to suppress.3 The trial court determined that suppression ____________________________________________ 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 3 Despite Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 581’s direction that “[a]t the conclusion [of a suppression] hearing, the judge shall enter on the record a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights, or in violation of these rules or any statute,” Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(I), here, the trial judge

1971Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

2021However, in this case, the suppression court did not enter on the record a statement of -2- J-A27009-20 findings of fact, as directed by Pa.R.Crim.P. 581.2 Therefore, because Appellee prevailed in the suppression court, “we may consider only the evidence of the defense and so much of the evidence for the Commonwealth as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole.” Cartegena, 63 A.3d at 298 .

2021However, in this case, the suppression court did not enter on the record a statement of -2- J-A27009-20 findings of fact, as directed by Pa.R.Crim.P. 581.2 Therefore, because Appellee prevailed in the suppression court, “we may consider only the evidence of the defense and so much of the evidence for the Commonwealth as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole.” Cartegena, 63 A.3d at 298 .

2018Suppression Hearing, 8/9/17, at 28.10 Tuggles, supra (search of vehicle’s center console justified by officer where he had reasonable suspicion that he was in danger ____________________________________________ 10 In fact, it is well-established that the search of passenger compartments of stopped vehicles is permissible where the defendant has been removed from the vehicle.

2018Suppression Hearing, 8/9/17, at 28. 10 *907 Tuggles , supra (search of vehicle's center console justified by officer where he had reasonable suspicion that he was in danger based on facts that: stop occurred in high crime, drug and gun area, at night, and defendant's arm made motion over center console).

2024“Thus, in the context of a traffic or similar stop, once the purpose for the [initial] stop has been completed, the question arises: Does the individual have objective reasons to believe that he is (or is not) free to end the police/citizen encounter?” Strickler, 757 A.2d at 891 . 16 Under the Vehicle Code, a police officer has authority to stop a vehicle if he “has reasonable suspicion” that a Vehicle Code violation “is occurring or has occurred” for the purpose of, inter alia, “secur[ing] such other information as the officer may reasonably believe to be necessary to enforce the provisions o

2023Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Reppert, 814 A.2d 1196, 1200 (Pa. Super. 2002)). 3 The suppression court drew facts from both Officer Susalla’s testimony and the affidavit of probable cause in support of the criminal complaint.

2019Id. (emphasis added). -3- J-S46038-19 At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the Philadelphia Municipal Court denied Appellant’s motion to suppress.

2017We further found that, "Appellant freely, knowingly and voluntarily gave his statement without improper coercion." Id.

2017Appellant maintains that his act of running cannot be categorized as “flight.” Appellant’s Brief at 15. ____________________________________________ 3 Because the defense did not present any witnesses at the suppression hearing, “the Commonwealth’s evidence is essentially uncontradicted.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 979 A.2d 913 , 917–918 (Pa. Super. 2009). -6- J-S04010-17 At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the trial court advanced its findings of fact, as follows: On January 18, 2014, while in uniform and driving a marked vehicle, Officer Shevlin, with his partner, Officer Gorman, was o

2017In short, the dissent’s logic “turn[s] on small details in the midst of a complex factual scenario.” Gary, 91 A.3d at 137 . 7 Interestingly enough, at the conclusion of the suppression hearing in the instant case, the Honorable Tracy Brandeis-Roman explained: Officer Copestick, I know that it’s very confusing regarding what you can search, when can you not search.

2004See e.g.: Commonwealth v. Graver, 461 Pa. 131 , 334 A.2d 667 (1975) (evidence introduced to show existence of prior police reports); Commonwealth v. Russell, 459 Pa. 1 , 326 A.2d 303 (1974) (evidence introduced to show existence of relationship between defendant and victim); Commonwealth v. Kelly, 245 Pa.Super. 351 , 369 A.2d 438 (1976) (evidence of police property receipt and two police reports were not basis of defendant's convictions for perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice); Ariondo v. Munsey, 122 Pa.Cmwlth. 475 , 553 A.2d 94 (1989) (evidence introduced to prove notice to Commonwea

2004See e.g.: Commonwealth v. Graver, 461 Pa. 131 , 334 A.2d 667 (1975) (evidence introduced to show existence of prior police reports); Commonwealth v. Russell, 459 Pa. 1 , 326 A.2d 303 (1974) (evidence introduced to show existence of relationship between defendant and victim); Commonwealth v. Kelly, 245 Pa.Super. 351 , 369 A.2d 438 (1976) (evidence of police property receipt and two police reports were not basis of defendant's convictions for perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice); Ariondo v. Munsey, 122 Pa.Cmwlth. 475 , 553 A.2d 94 (1989) (evidence introduced to prove notice to Commonwea

2004See e.g.: Commonwealth v. Graver, 461 Pa. 131 , 334 A.2d 667 (1975) (evidence introduced to show existence of prior police reports); Commonwealth v. Russell, 459 Pa. 1 , 326 A.2d 303 (1974) (evidence introduced to show existence of relationship between defendant and victim); Commonwealth v. Kelly, 245 Pa.Super. 351 , 369 A.2d 438 (1976) (evidence of police property receipt and two police reports were not basis of defendant's convictions for perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice); Ariondo v. Munsey, 122 Pa.Cmwlth. 475 , 553 A.2d 94 (1989) (evidence introduced to prove notice to Commonwea

2004See e.g.: Commonwealth v. Graver, 461 Pa. 131 , 334 A.2d 667 (1975) (evidence introduced to show existence of prior police reports); Commonwealth v. Russell, 459 Pa. 1 , 326 A.2d 303 (1974) (evidence introduced to show existence of relationship between defendant and victim); Commonwealth v. Kelly, 245 Pa.Super. 351 , 369 A.2d 438 (1976) (evidence of police property receipt and two police reports were not basis of defendant's convictions for perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice); Ariondo v. Munsey, 122 Pa.Cmwlth. 475 , 553 A.2d 94 (1989) (evidence introduced to prove notice to Commonwea

2004See e.g.: Commonwealth v. Graver, 461 Pa. 131 , 334 A.2d 667 (1975) (evidence introduced to show existence of prior police reports); Commonwealth v. Russell, 459 Pa. 1 , 326 A.2d 303 (1974) (evidence introduced to show existence of relationship between defendant and victim); Commonwealth v. Kelly, 245 Pa.Super. 351 , 369 A.2d 438 (1976) (evidence of police property receipt and two police reports were not basis of defendant's convictions for perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice); Ariondo v. Munsey, 122 Pa.Cmwlth. 475 , 553 A.2d 94 (1989) (evidence introduced to prove notice to Commonwea

2004See e.g.: Commonwealth v. Graver, 461 Pa. 131 , 334 A.2d 667 (1975) (evidence introduced to show existence of prior police reports); Commonwealth v. Russell, 459 Pa. 1 , 326 A.2d 303 (1974) (evidence introduced to show existence of relationship between defendant and victim); Commonwealth v. Kelly, 245 Pa.Super. 351 , 369 A.2d 438 (1976) (evidence of police property receipt and two police reports were not basis of defendant's convictions for perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice); Ariondo v. Munsey, 122 Pa.Cmwlth. 475 , 553 A.2d 94 (1989) (evidence introduced to prove notice to Commonwea

2004See e.g.: Commonwealth v. Graver, 461 Pa. 131 , 334 A.2d 667 (1975) (evidence introduced to show existence of prior police reports); Commonwealth v. Russell, 459 Pa. 1 , 326 A.2d 303 (1974) (evidence introduced to show existence of relationship between defendant and victim); Commonwealth v. Kelly, 245 Pa.Super. 351 , 369 A.2d 438 (1976) (evidence of police property receipt and two police reports were not basis of defendant's convictions for perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice); Ariondo v. Munsey, 122 Pa.Cmwlth. 475 , 553 A.2d 94 (1989) (evidence introduced to prove notice to Commonwea

2004See e.g.: Commonwealth v. Graver, 461 Pa. 131 , 334 A.2d 667 (1975) (evidence introduced to show existence of prior police reports); Commonwealth v. Russell, 459 Pa. 1 , 326 A.2d 303 (1974) (evidence introduced to show existence of relationship between defendant and victim); Commonwealth v. Kelly, 245 Pa.Super. 351 , 369 A.2d 438 (1976) (evidence of police property receipt and two police reports were not basis of defendant's convictions for perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice); Ariondo v. Munsey, 122 Pa.Cmwlth. 475 , 553 A.2d 94 (1989) (evidence introduced to prove notice to Commonwea

2002“Where the record supports the findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the court erred in reaching its legal conclusions based upon the facts.” McClease, 750 A.2d at 323 -24 (quoting In the Interest of D.M., 560 Pa. 166 , 743 A.2d 422, 424 (1999)). ¶ 6 In this case, the trial court did not enter Findings of Fact on the record; nor did it state its findings in court at the conclusion of the suppression hearing.

2002"Where the record supports the findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the court erred in reaching its legal conclusions based upon the facts." McClease, 750 A.2d at 323 -24 (quoting In the Interest of D.M., 560 Pa. 166 , 743 A.2d 422, 424 (1999)). ¶ 6 In this case, the trial court did not enter Findings of Fact on the record; nor did it state its findings in court at the conclusion of the suppression hearing.

2002“Where the record supports the findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the court erred in reaching its legal conclusions based upon the facts.” McClease, 750 A.2d at 323 -24 (quoting In the Interest of D.M., 560 Pa. 166 , 743 A.2d 422, 424 (1999)). ¶ 6 In this case, the trial court did not enter Findings of Fact on the record; nor did it state its findings in court at the conclusion of the suppression hearing.

2002"Where the record supports the findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the court erred in reaching its legal conclusions based upon the facts." McClease, 750 A.2d at 323 -24 (quoting In the Interest of D.M., 560 Pa. 166 , 743 A.2d 422, 424 (1999)). ¶ 6 In this case, the trial court did not enter Findings of Fact on the record; nor did it state its findings in court at the conclusion of the suppression hearing.