Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence in the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County, Criminal Division, No. CC-45-83
Robert L. McQuaide, Gettysburg, for appellant.
Roy A. Keefer, Assistant District Attorney, Gettysburg, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Tamilia, Lipez and Bucher, JJ.*fn*
[ 346 Pa. Super. Page 352]
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered pursuant to appellant's conviction for robbery. Sentence imposed was five to fifteen years imprisonment under the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712(a) requiring a mandatory five year sentence for crimes committed with a firearm.*fn1
Appellant's first argument is that there was no probable cause for his arrest; thus the physical evidence seized by the police should have been suppressed. We disagree.
[ 346 Pa. Super. Page 353]
In Commonwealth v. Williams, 317 Pa. Super. 456, 464, 464 A.2d 411, 415 (1983), this Court stated:
The standard to be used in assessing whether there was probable cause for a given arrest was set forth by this court in Commonwealth v. Jones, 271 Pa. Super. 528, 532, 414 A.2d 379, 381 (1979):
Probable cause to arrest existed if, at the time appellant was detained by the police, the facts and circumstances known to them and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information, were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that appellant had committed the . . . [crime]. Commonwealth v. Powers, 484 Pa. 198, 201, 398 A.2d 1013, 1014 (1979). The test is not one of certainties but one of probabilities dealing with considerations of everyday life. Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 468 Pa. 599, 605, 364 A.2d 677, 681 (1976). The facts known must be viewed from the vantage point of a prudent, reasonable, cautious police officer on the scene at the time of the arrest guided by his experience and training. Commonwealth v. Tolbert, 235 Pa. Super. 227, 230, 341 A.2d 198, 200 (1975).
Here, our review of the record discloses that appellant's arrest was supported by probable cause. Appellant was in a car stopped initially for a summary motor vehicle violation and was arrested when the officer noticed that the occupants of the car matched descriptions of persons who had just robbed a pharmacy a short distance away. As the lower court concluded:
The furtive and suspicious nature of the occupants' conduct coupled with the descriptions matching those of the robbery suspects gave the officer probable cause to believe the occupants had participated in the then recent robbery. Commonwealth v. Jones, 457 Pa. 423, 322 A.2d ...