J-A30002-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ISAAC DESHANE JONES
Appellant No. 338 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 12, 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012414-2011
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MUNDY, J., and PLATT, J.*
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 31, 2014
I respectfully dissent. Here, the record does not support a finding of
probable cause to arrest Jones. The facts and circumstances within Officer
Simpson’s knowledge at the time he arrested Jones did not rise to the level
to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that Jones had
committed or was committing a crime.
Instantly, Officer Simpson offered nothing more to support the arrest
than the fact that Jones talked to known drug dealers/users in a known
high-drug area and showed those individuals an unidentified object in his
hand. The officer was unable to hear the content of the conversations
between Jones and the individuals he approached and could not see what
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A30002-14
Jones was holding in his fist. Accordingly, Jones’ observed behavior, in and
of itself, did not rise to the level of probable cause.
Even taking into account Officer Simpson’s extensive experience on
the police force and his narcotics training, the nexus between this
experience and Jones’ observed behavior does not amount to the quantum
of evidence necessary to establish probable cause. The facts show that
Officer Simpson was clearly familiar with the area, had conducted many drug
surveillances in that same location, and was a trained member of the
Narcotics Enforcement Team. While Officer Simpson testified that he
recognized some of the individuals Jones approached to be known heroin
addicts and methadone clinic patients, he did not identify Jones as someone
he recognized or knew to be involved in drugs. Most notable, however, is
that unlike the facts in Thompson1 and Dunlap2, Officer Simpson did not
observe Jones engage in a single transaction.
Taking into account the additional facts that Officer Simpson was
unable to identify what Jones had in his fist, could not hear what was said
between Jones and the other individuals, did not recognize Jones or know
him to be involved in drugs, and never observed Jones make any hand-to-
hand transactions or exchange of objects with any of the individuals, I
____________________________________________
1
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009).
2
Commonwealth v. Dunlap, 941 A.2d 671 (Pa. 2007).
-2-
J-A30002-14
disagree with the majority’s determination that probable case existed to
arrest Jones. Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s order denying
suppression of the narcotics seized incident to Jones’ arrest.
-3-