J-A14030-26 2026 PA Super 151
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LOUIS SMITH :
:
Appellant : No. 3347 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 21, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0006865-2023
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and MURRAY, J.
OPINION BY MURRAY, J.: FILED JULY 15, 2026
Louis Smith (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed
following his nonjury convictions of one count each of persons not to possess
firearms, possession of a firearm with altered manufacturer’s number, and
possession of a controlled substance (PCS).1 Appellant raises a sole challenge
to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence. After
careful review, we affirm.
On June 30, 2023, Philadelphia law enforcement recovered from
Appellant a firearm and illegal controlled substances. The Commonwealth
subsequently charged Appellant with possession of a controlled substance with
intent to deliver (PWID), conspiracy to commit PWID, carrying a firearm
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6110.2(a); 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16). J-A14030-26
without a license, carrying a firearm on public streets in Philadelphia,
possessing an instrument of crime (PIC), 2 and the above-described offenses.
Following a preliminary hearing, a municipal court judge dismissed the
charges of PIC, PCS, conspiracy, and PWID, and held the remaining charges
for court. The Commonwealth refiled the criminal complaint relative to the
dismissed charges and, following a hearing, a common pleas court judge held
all charges for court.
On March 7, 2024, Appellant filed a boilerplate omnibus pretrial motion
(OPTM) seeking suppression of “physical evidence” and “anything said by
[Appellant.]” OPTM, 3/7/24, at 1. Following procedure not relevant to this
appeal, the matter proceeded to a suppression hearing on September 4, 2024.
See N.T., 9/4/24, at 6-7 (Appellant’s counsel stating the grounds for
suppression were that police (1) “lacked reasonable suspicion or probable
cause to stop, seize, arrest, frisk[,] or search [Appellant,]” and (2) questioned
Appellant without first providing Miranda3 warnings).
The trial court summarized the pertinent facts adduced at the
suppression hearing:
2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903(c), 6106(a)(1), 6108, 907(a).
3 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
-2-J-A14030-26
Special Agent Mike Guillaume [(Officer Guillaume) 4] testified that
on June 30, 2023, he was on duty as a Philadelphia Police Officer
with the Narcotics Enforcement Team and participated in an
investigation at the 1500 block of Market Street in Philadelphia.
N.T., 9/4/24, at 8, 27. At that point, [Officer] Guillame had been
with the Philadelphia Police for almost [five] years. Id. at 20.
During his time with the … Narcotics Enforcement Team, [Officer]
Guillaume’s unit averaged [75] cases a year. Id. at 21. [Officer]
Guillaume arrived in the area of 1500 Market Street around 11[:00
a.m.] on June 30, 2023. Id. at 28. [Officer] Guillaume was not
familiar with the area, as he was normally assigned to the 22 nd
district. Id. at 27-28.5 Around 1[:00 p.m.], a confidential
informant (“CI”) was provided [with] pre-recorded “buy” money
and instructed to purchase narcotics. Id. at 10-11, 32-33.
[Officer] Guillaume observed the CI approach Appellant, who was
with a male (later identified as [Rahmaire] Hayes [(Mr. Hayes)])
and another male who was never identified[ (unknown male)].
Id. at 11-12. Appellant directed the CI to Mr. Hayes by “kind of
point[ing] his finger.” Id. at 13. The CI spoke to Mr. Hayes while
Appellant spoke to a male later identified as [Risheem] Campbell[
(Mr. Campbell)]. Appellant and Mr. Campbell then returned to the
CI and Mr. Hayes. Id. at 12. The CI handed the pre-recorded
“buy” money to the unknown male, and Mr. Hayes handed the CI
a clear jar. Appellant was standing less than [five] feet from Mr.
Hayes at that time. Id. at 14-15. There was an exchange
between Mr. Campbell and the unknown male, which [Officer]
Guillaume believed was U.S. currency. The CI then reported back
to officers at a predetermined location. Id. at 12. [Officer]
Guillaume observed these interactions from a distance. He was
able to see the men involved, but could not hear their
conversations. Id. at 31. Officers searched the CI and recovered
one clear jar containing what appeared to be marijuana and $13
in U.S. currency. Id. at 12.
4 Officer Guillaume testified that, on the date of the suppression hearing, he
was employed by the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General. N.T., 9/4/24, at 20. As Officer Guillaume acted in his capacity as a Philadelphia Police officer at all times relevant to this appeal, we refer to him as such throughout.
5 At the suppression hearing, Officer Guillaume agreed that 1500 Market Street is not a “high crime area.” N.T., 9/4/24, at 21.
-3-J-A14030-26
Trial Court Opinion, 5/22/25, at 1-2 (citations and punctuation modified;
footnotes added).
The trial court summarized Officer Guillaume’s testimony concerning
what next transpired:
[Officer] Guillaume, along with [five] other officers, approached
Appellant’s group and stopped Appellant, Mr. Hayes, and Mr.
Campbell. N.T., 9/4/24, at 12-13, 16. [Officer] Guillaume
approached Appellant and placed his hands on [Appellant] to stop
him, at which point Appellant briefly struggled, “[k]ind of like a
‘get off me’ kind of thing.” Id. at 16, 36. Appellant quickly
became compliant with [Officer] Guillaume. [Officer] Guillaume
placed Appellant in handcuffs, frisked him, … removed the
handcuffs to take off Appellant’s backpack[, and then rehandcuffed Appellant]. Id. at 16-17, 37. [Officer] Guillaume
informed Appellant that he was going to search his backpack and
asked if there was anything in his bag that might hurt [law
enforcement]. Appellant informed [Officer Guillaume] that there
was a firearm in his bag. [Officer] Guillaume opened the bag and
recovered a loaded .38 revolver with an obliterated serial number.
Id. at 17, 37. Also recovered from Appellant’s bag were multiple
flip-top containers of an off-white, chalky substance suspected to
be crack cocaine, and a Ziplock bag containing what appeared to
be marijuana. Id. at 17. After searching the backpack, [Officer]
Guillaume placed Appellant, who was still in handcuffs, in the back
of a patrol car. Id. at 38. Drugs and U.S. currency were also
recovered from Mr. Hayes and Mr. Campbell. Id. at 24 ([Mr.]
Hayes), 24-25 ([Mr.] Campbell). [Officer] Guillaume testified
that, based on his experience and his observations, he believed
that Appellant and the other men were working together to sell
drugs. Id. at 23. [Officer Guillaume] did not observe any
exchanges between Appellant and the other men, any drugs or
paraphernalia with them, or Appellant reaching into his backpack
prior to the CI’s approach. Id. at 32.
Trial Court Opinion, 5/22/25, at 2-3 (citations and punctuation modified).
At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the trial court denied
Appellant’s motion to suppress the physical evidence, but granted his motion
-4-J-A14030-26
to suppress his statement to police regarding the firearm. N.T., 9/4/24, at
59-60. The matter immediately proceeded to a bench trial, after which the
trial court convicted Appellant of the above-referenced charges. Id. at 74.6
The trial court deferred sentencing for the preparation of a presentence
investigation report and a mental health evaluation.
On November 21, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an
aggregate 2½ to 5 years in prison. Appellant did not file post-sentence
motions. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Both Appellant and the
trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issue: “Did police have probable cause to
arrest [Appellant] for drug offenses[,] and to subsequently conduct a
warrantless search of the backpack he was wearing?” Appellant’s Brief at 2.
In his sole issue, Appellant argues that his arrest was unsupported by
probable cause, and therefore the evidence recovered from his backpack,
during a search incident to arrest,7 should have been suppressed. Id. at 17,
24.
6 Before trial commenced, the Commonwealth nolle prossed Appellant’s charges of carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a firearm on public streets in Philadelphia, and PIC. N.T., 9/4/24, at 62; Trial Disposition Form, 9/4/24, at 2. The trial court acquitted Appellant of PWID and conspiracy to commit PWID.
7 In a footnote in his appellate brief, Appellant additionally argues that Officer
Guillaume’s search of Appellant’s backpack “appears to have exceeded the scope of a lawful search incident to arrest. Thus, even if there were probable (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-5-J-A14030-26
Our Supreme Court recently reiterated our standard of review:
We review trial court suppression orders to determine whether the
factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal
conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Where the factual
findings are supported by the record, we are bound by them. We
assess the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing
party, which in this case was the Commonwealth. As an appellate
court, we are not bound by the suppression court’s conclusions of
law; rather, when reviewing questions of law, our standard of
review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.
Commonwealth v. Foster, ___ A.3d ___, 2026 WL 1383187, at *4 (Pa. filed
May 19, 2026) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Here, Appellant concedes that law enforcement “had probable cause to
believe that a drug transaction occurred, and that they could lawfully arrest
cause to arrest [Appellant] and the underlying arrest were lawful, the search of the backpack arguably was not.” Appellant’s Brief at 25 n.5. As Appellant did not raise this legal theory before the trial court, it is waived. See Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 566 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“When a defendant raises a suppression claim to the trial court and supports that claim with a particular argument or arguments, the defendant cannot then raise for the first time on appeal different arguments supporting suppression.” (citations omitted).
Even if Appellant had preserved this issue, it would merit no relief. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Williams, 305 A.3d 89, 97 (Pa. Super. 2023) (“The parameters of a search incident to arrest includes containers and clothing that are in the arrestee’s possession at the time of his arrest.” (citation omitted; emphasis in original)); Commonwealth v. Guzman, 612 A.2d 524, 526-27 (Pa. Super. 1992) (finding that police lawfully searched satchel carried by arrestee at time of arrest), abrogated on other grounds by
Commonwealth v. Bell, 645 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1994); Commonwealth v. Trenge, 451 A.2d 701, 710 (Pa. Super. 1982) (holding police lawfully searched shoulder bag that was on arrestee’s person when he was arrested).
-6-J-A14030-26
the men involved in the transaction.” Appellant’s Brief at 18. Appellant
argues, however, that he
did not participate in the suspected drug transaction—he did not
hand anything to anyone or receive anything from anyone[;] he
did not engage in “lookout behavior[;]” nor was he overheard
saying anything drug-related. …. [Appellant’s] behavior—
casually directing someone seeking drugs to a seller and being
nearby during the ensuing sale, but not appearing to participate
in or profit from it—has previously been held insufficient to convict
someone of being an accessory before the fact to a sale of drugs.
See Commonwealth v. Flowers, 387 A.2d 1268, 1271 (Pa.
1978) (finding [evidence was insufficient to establish] that
defendant who directed an undercover officer to drug seller was
an accessory to the sale of drugs … where defendant “did not
handle either cash or marijuana, did not enter negotiations or
delivery, and was present only passively during the ride to the
dealer’s residence and the transaction thereafter.”)[. 8]
Appellant’s Brief at 18-19 (record citations omitted; footnote added).
Appellant acknowledges that Flowers addressed a sufficiency claim, but
maintains that “there is no precedent suggesting” that Appellant’s conduct in
the instant case, “standing alone, meets the probable cause standard.” Id.
at 19.
Appellant further argues that Officer Guillaume’s experience is not a
relevant factor in the probable-cause analysis, because he failed “to establish
8 Our Supreme Court subsequently explained that while the Flowers Court opined that the defendant “could only be liable as an accessory … if the evidence showed that he was an active participant in the intent to make the sale, our statement was unnecessarily too restrictive.” Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228, 1236 n.13 (Pa. 2004) (quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). According to the Murphy Court, “the prosecution must only produce evidence establishing that the defendant wanted to actively aid in transferring drugs to another.” Id. (citation omitted).
-7-J-A14030-26
a nexus between his experience and the observations that he made of
[Appellant] prior to arresting him.” Id. at 21; see also id. at 20 (citing
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928, 935 (Pa. 2009) (stating that
“a court cannot simply conclude that probable cause existed based upon
nothing more than the number of years an officer has spent on the force.
Rather the officer must demonstrate a nexus between his experience and the
search, arrest, or seizure of evidence.” (citation omitted)).
According to Appellant, “other facts in this case cut against a finding of
probable cause,” including that (1) the transaction occurred during midday in
an area that was not known to be a high crime area; (2) officers were not
conducting surveillance “in response to a citizen’s complaint or informant’s
tip”; (3) Officer Guillaume observed only one drug transaction; and (4) Officer
Guillaume testified that he believed Appellant was “working in concert” with
Mr. Smith, Mr. Campbell, and the unknown male based on evidence recovered
after Appellant’s arrest. Id. at 22-23.
In response, the Commonwealth argues that “Officer Guillaume’s
experience as a narcotics officer[,] combined with the actions he witnessed[,]
led him to reasonably believe that [Appellant] was working with the three men
who physically touched the narcotics and cash under [Appellant’s]
-8-J-A14030-26
supervision.” Commonwealth Brief at 7-8.9 The Commonwealth points out
that Officer Guillaume
arranged for the CI to approach [Appellant] for the purpose of
purchasing narcotics. When the CI did so, [Appellant] was
standing within five feet of [Mr.] Hayes and the [unknown male,]
and within ten feet of [Mr.] Campbell. In response, [Appellant]
pointed the CI towards [Mr.] Hayes and the [unknown male].
[Appellant] then joined [Mr.] Campbell, and the two proceeded to
walk over to the CI, [Mr.] Hayes, and the [unknown male]. While
[Appellant] stood next to them, the CI handed the pre-recorded
cash to the [unknown male,] who in turn exchanged cash with
[Mr.] Campbell[,] while [Mr.] Hayes handed the CI a jar containing
marijuana.
Id. at 9-10 (record citations omitted; emphasis in original).
The Commonwealth contends that these observations established
probable cause, emphasizing that “[p]robable cause does not require
certainty, but rather exists when criminality is one reasonable inference.” Id.
at 10 (quoting Commonwealth v. Lindblom, 854 A.2d 604, 607 (Pa. Super.
2004)); see also id. at 10 (the Commonwealth arguing that the fact that
Officer Guillaume “listed the evidence recovered … when explaining his belief
that the men were working together” is irrelevant, because he only “did so
after explaining the interactions he observed between the men.”).
9 The Commonwealth opines that Officer Guillaume “clearly had reasonable suspicion to stop” Appellant; “[h]owever, as the probable cause standard was satisfied, it is unnecessary to determine the precise point at which the police detention became custodial, rather than investigative.” Commonwealth Brief at 8 n.3.
-9-J-A14030-26
Having summarized the parties’ arguments, we turn to the governing
law.
“The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1,
Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protect against unreasonable
searches and seizures.” Commonwealth v. Adorno, 291 A.3d 412, 415-16
(Pa. Super. 2023). “As a general rule, a warrant stating probable cause is
required before a police officer may search for or seize evidence.”
Commonwealth v. McMahon, 280 A.3d 1069, 1072 (Pa. Super. 2022)
(citation and quotation marks omitted). “Absent the application of one of a
few clearly delineated exceptions, a warrantless search or seizure is
presumptively unreasonable.” Id. (citation omitted). One such exception is
a search incident to arrest. Id.; see also Williams, 305 A.3d at 97 (“The
search incident to arrest exception allows arresting officers, in order to prevent
the arrestee from obtaining a weapon or destroying evidence, to search both
the person arrested and the area within his immediate control.” (citation
omitted)).
“[T]he validity of a warrantless arrest is determined by considering
whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officer had probable cause
to make it, and the person arrested is believed to be the guilty party.”
Commonwealth v. Floyd, 313 A.3d 1061, 1065 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citations
and quotation marks omitted). “When an officer makes an unlawful arrest,
any evidence seized during a search incident to the arrest must be
- 10 -J-A14030-26
suppressed.” Commonwealth v. Easter, 331 A.3d 675, 680 (Pa. Super.
2025) (citation omitted).
We have explained that
“[t]o determine whether probable cause exists to justify a
warrantless arrest, we must consider the totality of the
circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Clark, 735 A.2d 1248, 1252
(Pa. 1999). Probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists when
“the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting
officer are reasonably trustworthy and sufficient to justify a person
of reasonable caution in believing that the arrestee has committed
an offense.” Floyd, 313 A.3d at 1065 (citation omitted).
Commonwealth v. Hoyle, 337 A.3d 544, 563 (Pa. Super. 2025) (citations
modified); see also Commonwealth v. Goldman, 252 A.3d 668, 678 (Pa.
Super. 2021) (“It is only the probability and not a prima facie showing of
criminal activity that is a standard of probable cause.” (citation omitted);
Commonwealth v. Freeman, 128 A.3d 1231, 1242 (Pa. Super. 2015)
(“[P]robable cause does not involve certainties, but rather the factual and
practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men
act.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
“The totality of the circumstances test dictates that we consider all
relevant facts, when deciding whether the warrantless arrest was justified by
probable cause.” Commonwealth v. Luv, 735 A.2d 87, 90 (Pa. 1999)
(citation omitted). Moreover, “active engagement in a crime [is] not a
prerequisite for a warrantless arrest so long as the police ha[ve] probable
cause for a completed felony that [the defendant] committed.” Hoyle, 337
A.3d at 563 (citing Commonwealth v. Evans, 685 A.2d 535, 537 (Pa.
- 11 -J-A14030-26
1996)); see also Murphy, 844 A.2d at 1234 (“It is well-established [] that a
defendant, who was not a principal actor in committing the crime, may
nevertheless be liable for the crime if he was an accomplice of a principal
actor.” (citations omitted)).
Instantly, the trial court concluded that Appellant’s arrest was supported
by probable cause:
[Officer] Guillaume had probable cause to arrest Appellant and
carry out a search incident to arrest. He observed Appellant
standing near Mr. Hayes and the [unknown] male. N.T., 9/14/24,
at 11-12. Appellant directed the CI to Mr. Hayes. Id. at 13.
Appellant spoke with Mr. Campbell and then returned to the CI
and Mr. Hayes, at which point the CI handed pre-recorded “buy”
money to the unknown male. Mr. Hayes handed the CI a clear
jar, and then a hand-to-hand exchange occurred between Mr.
Campbell and the unknown male. Appellant was standing less
than [five] feet from Mr. Hayes when the jar was exchanged. Id.
at 12, 14-15. Officers then recovered what appeared to be
marijuana from the CI. Id. at 12. It was therefore reasonable for
Agent Guillaume[ to believe], based on [(1)] his experience with
the Narcotics Enforcement Team, [(2)] Appellant’s actions, [(3)]
the actions of others, and [(4)] the items recovered from the CI,
… that Appellant was engaged in selling drugs in concert with Mr.
Hayes, Mr. Campbell, and the unknown male.
Trial Court Opinion, 5/22/25, at 5 (punctuation and citations modified).
The trial court’s factual findings are supported by the record, and we
agree with its legal conclusion.10 See Foster, 2026 WL 1383187, at *4.
10 While we agree with the trial court’s ultimate conclusion, i.e., that Appellant’s arrest was supported by probable cause, we note that the evidence recovered after Appellant’s arrest is not an appropriate factor in the probablecause analysis. See Commonwealth v. Chase, 575 A.2d 574, 575 (Pa. Super. 1990) (“The established test for determining whether an officer had (Footnote Continued Next Page)
- 12 -J-A14030-26
Appellant accurately describes several circumstances (not present here),
which would have provided further support for the trial court’s decision. See
Appellant’s Brief at 22-23. Nevertheless, we agree with the trial court that
the totality of the circumstances in the instant case satisfies the probable
cause standard. See Luv, 735 A.2d at 90.
We have observed that “the question of whether probable cause exists
in a given circumstance is so fact-sensitive that it is difficult to extrapolate
from other cases.” Commonwealth v. Holton, 906 A.2d 1246, 1249 (Pa.
Super. 2006). Here, however, the trial court’s legal conclusion finds support
in the factually similar case of Commonwealth v. Leatherbury, 409 A.2d
78 (Pa. Super. 1979).
In Leatherbury, two undercover police officers approached the
appellant (who was unknown to them), and “asked if he knew where [they]
could get … half a bundle of heroin.” Id. at 79. The appellant responded that
he would “check it out,” and walked to a nearby residence, where he spoke
with another individual, the appellant’s brother, Irvin Leatherbury (Irvin). Id.
One of the officers walked over to the appellant and Irvin, whereupon the
appellant told the officer, “This is the man, talk to him.” Id. The officer
arranged to purchase heroin from Irvin; “[h]owever, [the] appellant did not
sufficient probable cause to legally justify a warrantless arrest involves looking at the facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the time of the arrest.” (citation omitted; emphasis added)).
- 13 -J-A14030-26
take part in the conversation, nor could [the officer] testify that [the] appellant
even heard [the conversation].” Id. The officer and Irvin went to another
residence, unaccompanied by the appellant. Id. Irvin entered the residence,
then “emerged with the heroin, and the purchase was completed outside.”
Id. The officers departed, later returned with backup, and arrested the
appellant and Irvin. Id. Following his convictions of PWID and conspiracy,
the appellant challenged his warrantless arrest on appeal. Id.
The Leatherbury Court rejected the appellant’s argument that his
arrest was unsupported by probable cause, emphasizing that the test for
probable cause “is not as demanding as the test for sufficiency, which is
whether the evidence is strong enough to support a finding of guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Id. at 80. The Leatherbury Court concluded that the
officer
had probable cause to arrest [the] appellant in that [the officer]
knew enough to warrant a prudent person in believing that [the]
appellant intended to help Irvin [] make a sale of heroin. [The
officer] knew[] that [the] appellant knew he wanted to buy heroin;
that [the] appellant introduced him to Irvin [] as someone who
could sell him heroin; and that shortly after the sale, [the]
appellant was at the scene of the sale. On the basis of this
knowledge[,] it was reasonable for [the officer] to infer that [the]
appellant had probably helped, [i.e.], acted as an accessory to,
Irvin [] with respect to the sale. The arrest of [the] appellant was
therefore lawful[.]
Id.
Instantly, law enforcement engaged the CI to purchase illegal drugs.
Officer Guillaume observed the CI approach Appellant, who directed the CI to
- 14 -J-A14030-26
Mr. Hayes and the unknown male. N.T., 9/4/24, at 13. As the CI spoke with
Mr. Hayes, Appellant spoke with Mr. Campbell, approximately 11 feet away.
Id. at 12. Appellant and Mr. Campbell then approached the CI, Mr. Hayes,
and the unknown male, at which point Officer Guillaume observed a hand-tohand transaction between the CI and the unknown male. Id. The CI then
returned to officers and presented the illegal drugs he or she had just obtained
via the transaction. Id.
Though Appellant insists Officer Guillaume failed to establish a nexus
between his experience and the facts of this case, we note that Officer
Guillaume testified that, in his experience, he had observed approximately
150 hand-to-hand drug transactions, see id. at 21, which is precisely what
occurred in the instant case. Regardless, the CI presented to law enforcement
the actual drugs he or she had just purchased, thereby conclusively confirming
Officer Guillaume’s suspicion that a drug sale had just transpired. The only
remaining question at that point was whether Officer Guillaume’s observations
of Appellant’s conduct supplied probable cause that Appellant was complicit in
the sale of illegal drugs.
Relying on Leatherbury, supra, we resolve that question in favor of
the trial court’s conclusion that probable cause existed to arrest Appellant. As
in Leatherbury, Appellant directed a drug purchaser to a drug seller. Here,
however, rather than disengaging, like the appellant in Leatherbury,
Appellant remained at the scene of purchase, and was mere feet away
- 15 -J-A14030-26
throughout the transaction. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the
fact that an agent of law enforcement (i.e., the CI), and not a police officer,
engaged with Appellant is not fatal to the probable-cause analysis. Officer
Guillaume knew, when the CI approached Appellant, that the CI’s mission was
to engage in a drug sale. Appellant’s actions of directing the CI to the drug
seller, and subsequently attending the scene of the drug sale, supplied law
enforcement with probable cause to believe Appellant “intended to help” his
compatriots complete a drug sale. Leatherbury, 409 A.2d at 80; see also
Murphy, 844 A.2d at 1237 (holding the evidence was sufficient to establish
that the defendant “intended to aid in the transfer of drugs … based on the
evidence that [the defendant] called out to [the drug seller] after the [drug
buyer] approached [the defendant], confirmed to [the drug seller] that the
[drug buyer] was not a police officer, stayed with the [drug buyer] while [the
drug seller] got drugs, and requested compensation from the [drug buyer] for
his efforts.”).
Accordingly, Appellant’s sole issue merits no relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Date: 7/15/2026
- 16 -