An en banc panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the lawfulness of the defendant’s arrest and the denial of his suppression motion. A police officer saw the defendant seated in the driver’s seat of a car. The officer recognized the defendant and the vehicle from a prior arrest. The officer radioed police dispatch, which informed the officer that the defendant had an active arrest warrant. Other officers arrived and arrested the defendant. Officers then approached the car, which had its windows halfway down and was illegally parked, to “secure” it. An officer saw a bag of cocaine on the front seat. Officers next applied for a warrant. When they executed the warrant, officers recovered more drugs and a handgun. The Commonwealth charged the defendant with possession of the handgun and the drugs. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, and the trial court denied the motion. After a jury convicted him, the defendant appealed, and the Superior Court affirmed. The defendant argued that his arrest was unlawful because the Commonwealth failed to prove the existence of a valid arrest warrant. The Court ruled that the suppression court credited the officers’ testimony, even though the arrest warrant was not produced at the suppression hearing. Because evaluating the credibility of the witnesses is the exclusive province of the factfinder in a suppression hearing, the Court affirmed the trial court’s factual determination and concluded that the correct correctly denied the suppression motion. When it evaluated the propriety of the search of the defendant’s car, the Superior Court did not apply Alexander because the defendant did not raise the issue with the trial court or in his 1925(b) statement. The Court then held that under the plain view exception, the officers were justified to seize the bag of drugs. Moreover, even if the plain view exception did not apply, the inevitable discovery doctrine would have applied and justified the search.