Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-2356 criminalCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RANDY LEE RICKRODE 99-2356 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BEFORE BAYLEY, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this [~' ~'' day of February, 2000, the motion of defendant to suppress evidence, IS DENIED. By the CoUrt, ','~ Edgar B. Bayle Jonathan R. Birbeck, Esquire For the Commonwealth William Braught, Esquire For Defendant :saa COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. RANDY LEE RICKRODE 99-2356 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BEFORE BAYLEY, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., February '18, 2000:-- Defendant, Randy Lee Rickrode, is charged with counts of driving under the influence? driving when his operating privileges were suspended? failing to drive at a safe speed? reckless driving,4 and failing to display a registration plate? He filed a motion to suppress evidence upon which a hearing was conducted on February 15, 2000. Although he raised two issues in the motion, he has now limited his claim to seeking to suppress all evidence obtained by the police pursuant to the execution of a search warrant. We find the following facts. At 4:36 a.m. on June 10, 1999, Kerry Vincent, a ~ 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731(a)(1) & (4). 2 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(b). 3 75 Pa.C.S. § 3361. "75 Pa.C.S. § 3736. ~ 75 Pa.C.S. § 1332. 99-2356 CRIMINAL TERM police officer for North Middleton Township, Cumberland County, responded to a one- vehicle accident. He found defendant standing next to a car that was severely damaged. Defendant was alone and he told the officer that he had been driving the car too fast, had swerved to avoid a deer and hit a telephone pole. Defendant showed signed of intoxication and told the officer that he had been drinking. He acknowledged to the officer that his driver's license was suspended. There was no license plate on the car, and defendant told the officer that his ex-wife had taken the tags off. Defendant had some injuries and an ambulance arrived that had been dispatched at the request of Officer Vincent. Defendant was transported to a hospital. Officer Vincent then went to the hospital where he asked defendant to consent to a blood test in order to determine his blood alcohol content. Defendant refused. Officer Vincent subsequently applied for a search warrant. In the affidavit of probable cause which set forth the above facts, the officer requested: Iai search warrant for the medical records of Randy Lee Rickrode... for the purpose of determining the blood alcohol content for Mr. Rickrode at the time of the incident. (Emphasis added.) The search warrant was issued by a District Justice which contained under the heading IDENTIFY ITEMS TO BE SEARCHED FOR AND SEIZED, the authority to search and seize: ANY AND ALL MEDICAL RECORDS PERTAINING TO RANDY LEE RICKRODE, WHITE MALE DATE OF BIRTH, 12-27-67. SSN# 205-52- 6427. REFERENCE TO INJURIES RECEIVED AS RESULT OF A ONE VEHICLE ACCIDENT ON 6-10-99. INCLUDING ALL WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION, RECORDS, OBSERVATIONS, AND -2- 99-2356 CRIMINAL TERM LABORATORY REPORTS TO INCLUDE BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT. (Emphasis added.) Citing Commonwealth v. Grossman, 521 Pa. 290 (1989), defendant maintains that all evidence obtained by Officer Vincent as a result of the execution of the search warrant must be suppressed because the authority set forth the warrant as to the items to be searched for and seized was overbroad. Defendant argues that the warrant authorized Officer Vincent to obtain the entire medical record of defendant that was generated by his hospitalization on June 10, 1999, not just the results of the blood alcohol test for which he had probable cause. We believe that defendant's interpretation of the scope of the authority granted in the warrant is misplaced. The authority was to seize medical records with reference to injuries received as a result of the accident including all written documentation, records, observations and laboratory reports to include blood alcohol content. This does not include the entire medical record but is limited to the injuries defendant incurred and the observations made of defendant while he was being treated with the documentation and laboratory reports for blood alcohol content. The authority granted in the warrant was not overbroad as was -3- 99-2356 CRIMINAL TERM the case in Commonwealth v. Grossman, supra.6 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this .~,ri~ ~-- 'day.of February, 2000, the motion of defendant to suppress evidence, IS DENIED. By the Court, Edgar B~. Bayley, J. Jonathan R. Birbeck, Esquire For the Commonwealth William Braught, Esquire For Defendant :saa 6 In Commonwealth v. Bagley, 408 Pa. Super. 188 (1991), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania applied the doctrine of severance to an overly broad search warrant as mandating that invalid portions of a search warrant may be stricken and the remaining portions held valid as long as the remaining portions describe with particularity the evidence to be seized. In Commonwealth v. McDonald, 97-0274 Criminal Term, August 28, 1997, this judge, while agreeing with the reasoning of the Superior Court in Bagley, concluded in a comprehensive opinion that we were bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in Grossman which held that all evidence seized as a result of an overbroad search warrant must be suppressed under Article 1 Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Notwithstanding, this court, per Guido, J., in Commonwealth v. Carey, 99-0573 Criminal Term, January 21, 2000, relied on Bagley in applying the severance doctrine to an overbroad search warrant without mentioning Grossman or McDonald. -4-