Com. v. Roscoe, F.

J-S59031-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. FRANK ROSCOE Appellee No. 751 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Order February 7, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007071-2013 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 admittedly a close case, I agree with the trial court that the facts of this matter are distinguishable from Thompson and, accordingly, would suppress the evidence seized incide Unlike in Thompson, the Commonwealth here presented no evidence that the corner on which the alleged aborted drug transaction took place was located in a high crime, much less a high drug crime, area.1 In addition, ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 It bears noting that, in Thompson, the Commonwealth itself framed the officer who is familiar with drug sales sees what he recognizes as a drug sale, at a specific drug-selling location, he has probable cause to arrest (Footnote Continued Next Page) J-S59031-14 Officer York did not actually see what was contained in the opaque black 2 Indeed, Officer York never witnessed Roscoe actually remove anything from the bag, and no exchange between Roscoe and the other individual ever took place. Finally, while Officer York noted his experience and training, he did not testify whether the hundreds of narcotics arrests he had made involved hand-to- hand street transactions such as the one at issue here.3 In light of the foregoing, and based upon the totality of the evidence, I do not believe that the activities witnessed by Officer York rose to the level _______________________ (Footnote Continued) Thompson, 985 A.2d at 932. In that case, the area in which the drug sale took place had been designated by the and was known by the arresting officer to be an area in which narcotics, especially heroin, were regularly sold. 2 In Thompson, the police officer specifically testified that he saw the cash. 3 The officer in Thompson Thompson, 985 A.2d at 930. -2- J-S59031-14 -3-