Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

[U] Commonwealth v. Zachary

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

March 12, 2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee
v.
RAHEEM ZACHARY, Appellant

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the Order entered April 20, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division No(s).: MC-51-CR-0042939-2011

BEFORE: ALLEN, MUNDY and FITZGERALD, [*] JJ.

MEMORANDUM

FITZGERALD, J.

Appellant, Raheem Zachary, appeals from the order entered April 20, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denying his petition for writ of certiorari, following his conviction in the Municipal Court of Philadelphia[1] for possession of marijuana.[2] Appellant alleges the Municipal Court erred in denying his pretrial suppression motion. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the facts based upon the notes of testimony from the motion to suppress hearing:

1. On October 7, 2011, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Officers [Jason] Troccoli and Zukauskas were on a tour of duty on the 2100 block of South Taney Street. Motion to Suppress Hearing/Trial, February 8, 2012, at pp. 6-7. The officers were dressed in bike uniform and were on bikes that day. Id. at 7-8.
2. There, the officers noticed that [Appellant] was walking northbound on a public sidewalk. Id. at 8. Earlier that day, the officers had received information from the Homicide Unit that [Appellant] was wanted for investigation in reference to a recent homicide that occurred in the area. Id. at 7.
3.The officers then approached [Appellant] on their bikes; they wanted to speak with him briefly and ask him some questions. Id. at 8, 13-14.
4.Officer Troccoli pulled up in front of [Appellant] to speak with him. Id. at 8.
5. [Appellant] was standing on the sidewalk at that time, and Officer Troccoli and his partner were standing in the street adjacent to [Appellant]. Id. 11-12.
6. The Officers noticed that [Appellant] had his left hand clenched. Id. at 8.
7. Officer Troccoli was concerned that [Appellant] might have a concealed weapon or small gun in his clenched hand. Id. at 14. He then asked [Appellant] what was in his hand and to open his hand. Id. at 8.
8. [Appellant] volunteered that he had some weed in his hand and opened his hand. Id. The officers, in plain view, saw four small, clear zip-lock baggies containing a ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.