Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Dubow](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10802490/com-v-flythe-a/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. v. Flythe, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 3139 EDA 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Dubow

• Opinion

• Authorities (10)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by Dubow

J-A01012-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ANTARRIOS J. FLYTHE :
:
Appellant : No. 3139 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 26, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-23-CR-0003302-2023

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MARCH 2, 2026

Appellant Antarrios J. Flythe appeals from the Judgment of Sentence

imposed in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas following his

convictions of firearms offenses. He challenges the denial of his motion to

suppress and the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions. After

careful review, we affirm.

We glean the relevant facts and procedural history from the certified

record, including the trial court’s Opinion. On April 11, 2023, at 2:40 AM,

Pennsylvania State Trooper Thomas Platt and his partner observed a vehicle

with North Carolina plates driving in the left lane of Route 95 south and

exceeding the speed limit. Trooper Platt activated his vehicle’s sirens,

emergency lights, and spotlights to pull the car over. Trooper Platt testified

that as the vehicle slowed down, he saw the passenger in the rear seat reach

over the back seat, lift up what he inferred was the trunk’s floorboard where
J-A01012-26

a white object sat, and then the white object disappeared from his view. 1 The

car then pulled onto the shoulder of the road. Mr. Ridge Tow was the driver

of the vehicle; Ali Abdul-Malik was the front seat passenger. 2 We highlight

the fact that Appellant was merely a passenger in the car, seated in the right

rear passenger seat.

Trooper Platt requested Mr. Tow’s driver’s license, registration, and

insurance card and noticed the smell of burnt marijuana emanating from the

car. Mr. Tow provided his driver’s license but was not able to produce other

documents, and indicated the car belonged to his mother. Trooper Platt asked

Mr. Tow to step out of the vehicle to speak with him, and placed him in the

back seat of the trooper’s vehicle so Trooper Platt could access the motor

vehicle database to identify the vehicle. During questioning in the police car,

Mr. Tow could not identify exactly where they had been in Philadelphia and

whom they had visited and denied having contraband and firearms in the car.

Trooper Platt asked for consent to search the vehicle, which Mr. Tow denied.

Trooper Platt then informed Mr. Tow that because he smelled marijuana, he

was going to call in the canine unit to conduct further investigation. He then

asked Mr. Tow to wait outside the police vehicle.

After radioing for a canine team, Trooper Platt went back to Mr. Tow’s

vehicle and asked the passengers to step out. When the passengers asked

---

1 Upon executing the search warrant, troopers identified the white object as a

pair of sneakers.

2 Ali Abdul-Malik’s appeal is pending at Docket No. 366 EDA 2025.

-2-
J-A01012-26

why, Trooper Platt said, “I’ll explain when you get out,” and when questioned

further by the passengers, he said “case law says I can remove passengers

from a vehicle during a traffic stop.” See Suppression Hr’g, 2/16/24, Cmwlth.

Exh. 8, 18:00-21:50 (video/audio recording of Trooper Platt’s interactions

with passengers). The passengers reluctantly stepped out of the car and

Trooper Platt explained that he had called the canine unit to conduct further

investigation and asked them to wait outside the police vehicle. Id. at 21:50-

23:29.

Trooper Evan Worth and his canine partner arrived approximately 30

minutes later and Troopers Platt and Worth did a preliminary walk around the

vehicle, shining their flashlights through the vehicle windows. While doing so,

each trooper saw the butt of a gun sticking out from under the front driver’s

seat. Troopers then handcuffed all three men. After the canine sniffed around

the outside of the vehicle and alerted for contraband, the Troopers transported

the passengers to the Media State Trooper barracks to await a search warrant

for the car.

Upon execution of the search warrant for a search of the car, state

troopers recovered a second gun in the glove compartment of the vehicle,

which DNA swab testing revealed to be co-defendant Abdul-Malik’s DNA. A

third firearm was found between the cargo area and the backseat where

Appellant had been sitting. The DNA swab sample from that third firearm

matched Appellant’s DNA.

-3-
J-A01012-26

The Commonwealth charged Appellant on April 11, 2023, with one count

each of Possession of Firearm Prohibited and Firearms Not To Be Carried

Without a License, and two counts of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. 3

On November 17, 2023, Appellant filed an omnibus pre-trial motion

seeking to quash the criminal information and suppress the gun that the

troopers found in the car in which Appellant was a passenger. In his motion

to suppress, Appellant asserted, inter alia, that the smell of marijuana alone

could not support the investigative detention that occurred beyond the

purpose of the traffic stop.

The court held a hearing on the omnibus pre-trial motion on February

16, 2024, at which Trooper Platt testified and the court admitted audio/video

recorded by the troopers during the stop. 4 Following argument from counsel,

the court denied Appellant’s motion to suppress.

On March 20, 2024, the case proceeded to a two-day jury trial, following

which the jury found Appellant guilty of Firearms Not To Be Carried Without a

---

3 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), and 35 P.S. §780-113 (a)(32),
respectively. Following Appellant’s preliminary hearing, the court dismissed
the Possession of Contraband charges.

4 The hearing on February 16, 2024, first addressed the motion to quash that

Appellant had included in the omnibus pre-trial motion and the court then
quashed two counts of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia charged against him.
The Notes of Testimony relevant to Appellant’s motion to suppress begin on
page 32 of the hearing transcript and the court incorporated the
Commonwealth’s exhibits admitted in connection with the motion to quash as
part of the motion to suppress.

-4-
J-A01012-26

License. After a stipulated bench trial, the court found Appellant guilty of

Possession of Firearm Prohibited. 5

On June 26, 2024, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term

of five to twelve years’ imprisonment, followed by three years’ probation.

Following the court’s denial of his post-sentence motions, Appellant

timely appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P.

1925.

Appellant provides the following Statement of the Questions Involved:

I. Did the trial court err when it denied Appellant’s Motion to
Suppress evidence recovered during the traffic stop where
there was no probable cause to support the search?

II. Was the evidence sufficient to support Appellant’s
convictions where there was no evidence to establish that
Appellant either physically or constructively possessed the
weapon found in the vehicle?

Appellant’s Br. at 4.

In his first issue, Appellant concedes that the officer had probable cause

to stop the vehicle for a traffic violation, i.e., exceeding the speed limit. He

asserts, however, that the purpose of the traffic stop ended prior to Appellant’s

removal from the vehicle and his detention was, thus, not based on reasonable

suspicion that he was involved in criminal activity. Appellant’s Br. at 9-15.

He contends that the smell of marijuana was not enough to support reasonable

---

5 The parties stipulated that Appellant has a prior felony conviction for robbery

in North Carolina.

-5-
J-A01012-26

suspicion to extend the traffic stop to question Mr. Tow and “to conduct a

canine sniff.” Id. at 10. Appellant concludes that “the record of the

suppression hearing makes clear that Trooper Platt lacked reasonable

suspicion to extend the traffic stop by detaining the car’s occupants to secure

a canine sniff.” Id.

Our review of “a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is

limited to determining whether the suppression court’s factual findings are

supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those

facts are correct.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010).

This Court is “bound by the factual findings of the suppression court,” but we

are not bound by its legal conclusions, which we review de novo.

Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d 291, 320-21 (Pa. 2011). We may review

only “the evidence presented at the suppression hearing when examining a

ruling on a pre-trial motion to suppress.” Commonwealth v. Harlan, 208

A.3d 497, 499 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

It is well-settled that “a defendant charged with a possessory offense

has automatic standing to challenge a search.” Commonwealth v. Peak, 230

A.3d 1220, 1224 (Pa. Super. 2020)(citation omitted). “Nevertheless, ‘in order

to prevail, the defendant must show that he had a privacy interest in the area

searched.’” Id. (citation omitted).

In Commonwealth v. Enimpah, 106 A.3d 695 (Pa. 2014), our

Supreme Court held that if the Commonwealth presents evidence which shows

-6-
J-A01012-26

the defendant had no such privacy interest, the burden shifts to the defendant

to demonstrate he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area

searched.

While cursorily similar, standing and privacy interest are different
concepts serving different functions. Standing is a legal interest
that empowers a defendant to assert a constitutional violation and
thus seek to exclude or suppress the government's evidence
pursuant to the exclusionary rules under the Fourth Amendment
of the United States Constitution or Article 1, Section 8 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution. It ensures a defendant is asserting a
constitutional right of his own. See [Commonwealth v.
Hawkins, 718 A.2d 265,] 269 (Pa. 1998) (citations omitted)
(noting this Court's refusal to recognize vicarious assertions of
constitutional rights). The expectation of privacy is an inquiry
into the validity of the search or seizure itself; if the
defendant has no protected privacy interest, neither the
Fourth Amendment nor Article I, § 8 is implicated.

Id. at 698–99 (Pa. 2014)(some citations omitted; emphasis added. See also

Commonwealth v. Millner, 888 A.2d 680, 692 (Pa. 2005) (observing that

“a defendant cannot prevail upon a suppression motion unless he

demonstrates that the challenged police conduct violated his own, personal

privacy interests.”).

Here, the motion to suppress was a request to suppress the gun that

the state troopers found in the car in which Appellant was a passenger. Before

addressing the actions of the troopers, Appellant must establish that he, as a

passenger in the car, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle.

Appellant, however, presented no evidence showing that he had any

expectation of privacy in the vehicle. In fact, his attorney conceded at the

suppression hearing that Appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of

-7-
J-A01012-26

privacy in the vehicle. N.T. Suppression Hr’g, at 66. Because Appellant has

not established the threshold basis upon which to grant a suppression motion,

pursuant to Enimpah, supra, his Fourth Amendment rights are not

implicated. Accordingly, Appellant’s first issue fails to garner relief.

In his second issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting his firearm offenses. Specifically, he argues that the

Commonwealth failed to present evidence to prove that he actually or

constructively possessed the weapon found in the vehicle. Appellant’s Br. at

15.

Our standard and scope of review of challenges to the sufficiency of the

evidence is well-established. “We review claims regarding the sufficiency of

the evidence by considering whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial

in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence

to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Parrish, 191 A.3d 31, 36 (Pa. Super.

2018)(citation omitted). “Further, a conviction may be sustained wholly on

circumstantial evidence, and the trier of fact—while passing on the credibility

of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence—is free to believe all, part, or

none of the evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). “Because evidentiary sufficiency

is a matter of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review

is plenary.” Id. (citation omitted).

-8-
J-A01012-26

Both of Appellant’s firearm offenses require proof of possession. 6 The

Crimes Code defines the term “possession” as “an act, within the meaning of

this section, if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing

possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have

been able to terminate his possession.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 301(c).

This Court has held that “[p]ossession can be found by proving actual

possession, constructive possession, or joint constructive possession.”

Parrish, 191 A.3d at 36 (citation omitted). “Where a defendant is not in

actual possession of the prohibited items, the Commonwealth must establish

that the defendant had constructive possession to support the conviction.”

Id., citing Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 67 A.3d 817, 820 (Pa. Super. 2013)

(conviction under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a) supported by a finding of constructive

possession). See also Commonwealth v. Parker, 847 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super.

2004) (same).

“Constructive possession is a legal fiction, a pragmatic construct to deal

with the realities of criminal law enforcement.” Hopkins, supra at 820

(citation and quotation omitted). “We have defined constructive possession

as conscious dominion, meaning that the defendant has the power to control

---

6 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105(a)(1) (“A person who has been convicted of an

offense enumerated in subsection (b), within or without this Commonwealth,
. . . shall not possess, use, control, . . . a firearm in this Commonwealth.”);
18 Pa.C.S. §§6106(a)(1) (“. . . [A]ny person who carries a firearm in any
vehicle . . . without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter
commits a felony of the third degree.).

-9-
J-A01012-26

the contraband and the intent to exercise that control.” Id. (citation and

quotation marks omitted). “To aid application, we have held that constructive

possession may be established by the totality of the circumstances.” Id.

(citation and quotation marks omitted).

“It is well established that, as with any other element of a crime,

constructive possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence.” Parrish,

191 A.3d at 36-37 (internal brackets, quotation marks, and citation omitted).

“In other words, the Commonwealth must establish facts from which the trier

of fact can reasonably infer that the defendant exercised dominion and control

over the contraband at issue.” Id. at 37.

Further, “a defendant’s mere presence at a place where contraband is

found or secreted is insufficient, standing alone, to prove that he exercised

dominion and control over those items.” Id. (citation omitted). “Thus, the

location and proximity of an actor to the contraband alone is not conclusive of

guilt.” Id. (citation omitted). Rather, “knowledge of the existence and

location of the contraband is a necessary prerequisite to proving the

defendant’s intent to control, and, thus, his constructive possession.” Id.

Here, we agree with the trial court that sufficient evidence established

that Appellant constructively possessed the firearm found in the vehicle. First,

Trooper Platt observed Appellant reaching behind the seat after the police

lights and sirens were activated and the search of the vehicle recovered a

firearm from that area. Moreover, the firearm contained Appellant’s DNA.

• 10 - J-A01012-26

Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude the evidence

supported the element of possession. Accordingly, this issue merits no relief.

In sum, we conclude the trial court properly denied Appellant’s

suppression motion and sufficient evidence supported the finding that

Appellant possessed the firearm. We, thus, affirm Appellant’s judgment of

sentence.

Judgment of Sentence affirmed.

Date: 3/2/2026

• 11 -