Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mohamed G. Badawy, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Omer Abudawwas

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mohamed G. Badawy

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Omer Abudawwas

Criminal Action-Constitutional Law-Fourth Amendment-Search and Seizure-Omnibus Pretrial Motion-Suppression of Evidence-Vehicle Stop-Violation of the Vehicle Code-Traveling in the Left Lane-Reasonable Suspicion-Probable Cause-De Minimis Violation-Canine Sniff-Consent

Defendants, who were charged with violations of the Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, filed Omnibus Pretrial Motions seeking suppression of evidence obtained during a traffic stop on February 16, 2024.  On that date, law enforcement stopped the rented vehicle operated by Mohamed G. Badawy with Omer Abudawwas as a passenger that was driving the left lane of Interstate 78 when the vehicle moved to the right lane in front of a tractor trailer driving in the right lane.  Law enforcement indicated that the vehicle had been stopped because the vehicle traveled in the left lane for 3/10 of a mile without passing another vehicle in violation of Title 75 Pa.C.S. § 3301.  Law enforcement later testified that the vehicle caught his attention because the vehicle operated by two (2) males had an out of state license plate with packages in the back.  Law enforcement had Badawy exit the vehicle and remain at the passenger side of the patrol vehicle, where he concluded that the paperwork appeared in order and neither Badawy or Abudawwas had warrants.  Law enforcement had Badawy stay at the passenger side of the patrol vehicle and returned to Abudawwas to question him regarding the details of their trip, which slightly differed from the details provided by Badawy.  Following denial of consent to search the vehicle by Abudawwas, Defendants sat in their vehicle and were required to remain at the scene until the arrival of a canine unit.  During a sniff of the vehicle, the dog exhibited behavior indicating the presence of illegal narcotics, after which Defendants consented to the search of the vehicle, which yielded marijuana and paraphernalia.   

1.  When considering whether reasonable suspicion or probable cause is required for a traffic stop, the nature of the Vehicle Code violation must be considered. 

2.  A de minimis violation of the Motor Vehicle Code does not give rise to probable cause to support a traffic stop. 

3.  Where it is clear that a tractor trailer occupied the right hand lane a short distance ahead of Defendants’ vehicle, other vehicles were present in the left lane directly in front of Defendants’ path of travel and Defendants were operating the vehicle with the flow of traffic, Defendants were utilizing the left land in an attempt to pass the tractor trailer such that their actions were reasonable under. § 3301. 

4.  To the extent that Defendants’ actions violated § 3301, Defendants’ actions constituted a de minimis infraction that did not constitute probable cause for the vehicle stop.

5.  The continued detention and investigation of Defendants after concluding that their identification, registration and rental agreement were in order was an unreasonable seizure. 

6.  A canine sniff constitutes a search.

7.  Where the subject of the canine search is a place rather than a person, law enforcement must have reasonable suspicion for believing that contraband would be found in the place subject to the search. 

8.  Under the totality of the circumstances, reasonable suspicion did not exist to detain Defendants longer than necessary for issuance of a traffic citation and to require them to remain at the scene for further investigation and canine sniff where law enforcement testified that the claimant’s identification was issued by the state of California and Defendants reported traveling to New York which the officer indicated are known drug trafficking sites and he observed boxes and bags in the back of the vehicle. 

9.  Where a consensual search has been preceded by an unlawful seizure, the exclusionary rule requires suppression of evidence obtained.

10.  Since probable cause did not exist to initiate the traffic stop, Defendants unlawfully were detained and the canine sniff was not supported by reasonable suspicion at the time Defendants consented to the vehicle search, the consent given was tainted by illegality.

L.C.C.C.P. Nos. CP-38-CR-294-2024 and CP-38-CR-295-2024, Opinion by Charles T. Jones, Jr., Judge, March 28, 2025.