Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-1338 criminalCOMMONWEALTH Ve SAM L. WILLIS COMMONWEALTH Ve JOHN S. WILLIS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-1338 CRIMINAL TERM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-1521 CRIMINAL TERM AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT day of MARCH, 1998, after a hearing on Defendants' Omnibus Pre Trial Motion in the nature of a request to suppress evidence, the motion is DENIED. Michael S. Schwoyer, Esquire For the Commonwealth By the . Edward E. Guido, Judge Jerry J. Russo, Esquire For Defendant Sam L. Willis Matthew R. Gover, Esquire For Defendant John S. Willis :sld COMMONWEALTH Ve SAM L. WILLIS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-1338 CRIMINAL TERM COMMONWEALTH Vo JOHN S. WILLIS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-1521 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' OMNIBUS PRE TRIAL MOTION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW · pURSUANT TO PA. RULE OF CRIM. PROCEDURE 323(i) The Defendants filed a joint Omnibus Pre Trial Motion requesting the suppression of certain evidence. A hearing was held on Tuesday, February 10, 1998, at which the Defendants questioned the legality of the search of a certain motor vehicle bearing Texas registration 02958R3 and the search of the motel room which they occupied. Separate warrants were obtained for each search. The Defendants questioned the sufficiency of the probable cause affidavit in support of the vehicle warrant. While they did not question the sufficiency of the probable cause affidavit in connection with the motel room warrant, they alleged that the warrant was executed in violation of Pa. Rule of Crim. Procedure 2007.~ The issues are ready to be decided by the Court. FINDINGS OF FACT (1) Agent Jeffrey Mohn has sixteen (16) years experience as a narcotics investigator with the Attorney General's Office. ~Defendant Sam Willis had also requested that certain post arrest statements be suppressed. However, after, hearing, this request for relief was withdrawn. (2) Agent Mohn was the affiant on both the warrant for the vehicle and the warrant for the motel room. (3) Both warrants contained the identical probable cause affidavit in support thereof.2 (4) Each probable cause affidavit set forth the extensive training and experience of Agent Mohn and provided, in relevant part, as follows: That it is quite common for those involved in marihuana sales to transport large quantities of marihuana from source states. That it is common for those transporting marihuana to utilize vehicles to transport the marihuana, such as rental vehicles and trucks. That Texas is known as being a source state for marihuana. · · · Your affiant and members of the Office of Attorney General's Bureau of Narcotics Investigation have been investigating the illicit drug trafficking of one Samuel L. Willis of Longview, Texas. In the course of this investigation, your affiant was able to develop a "COOPERATING INDIVIDUAL. The term "Cooperating Individual" hereafter referred to in this affidavit as CI is cryptic reference used to describe a private citizen who for various reasons offers his\her services to the law enforcement community.3. . . · · · C/I advised that he/she has in the past been involved in the business of selling marihuana for approximately 1.5 years and that his/her source of supply for marihuana was Sam WILLIS, a W/M, 50-51 years age of 200 E. Ewing Street, Longview, TX 75602; telephone number of 903-753-6539 and 903-753-8279. · · · WILLIS'S first load of marihuana delivered to C/I was 100- 150 pounds. C/I advised that he/she could not handle that amount so WILLIS somehow located a buyer in New Jersey who took between 80-100 pounds. C/I advised that he drove the marihuana to the Sand Flea Motel (just inside of NJ from Pa); ...... 2Defendants concede the sufficiency of the probable cause affidavit in support of the search warrant for the motel room. 3The warrant went on describe the detailed procedures used to make a controlled drug buy using the CI. C/I advised that WILLIS would transport the marihuana to PA in a red colored panel work truck with utility boxes mounted on the sides. The marihuana would be in boxes marked as though they contained frozen shrimp. That WILLIS, is associated with a young Mexican who is approximately 27 years old and operates a red Ford Tempo with Texas registration plates. During their association, C/I believes that WILLIS brought marihuana to Pa. on four occasions. . . That when WILLIS came to Pennsylvania to deliver marihuanao [sic], WILLIS would stay at the Starlight Motel, the Super 8 Motel and the Roadway [sic] Inn in the Carlisle area. That the C/I agreed to cooperate with law enforcement efforts to conduct an investigation concerning Mr. Willis and in that effort to make recorded telephone calls to WILLIS and discuss money still owed and the placing of an order for in excess of 100 pounds for WILLIS to bring to PA in the future.4 . . . · · · That on Saturday morning 06/28/97, at approx. 1100 hours to 1200 hours the C/I reported to this agent that C/I had just received a telephone call from Sammy Willis. C/I reports that Willis advised C/I that Willis was planning on traveling to Pennsylvania and that Willis was leaving for Pennsylvania on Monday 06/30/97. The C/I reports that Willis asked the C/I if everything was "all right" C/I reports that in the past Willis has asked this to ask the C/I if it was all right to bring marihuana to Pennsylvania and to inquire if the C/I had money for the Marihuana once it is in Pennsylvania. · · · On 070597, at approximately 1700 hrs, Mr. Sam Willis called the C/I advising him that he was over half way and would call after arrival. This call was recorded per a consensual approved by Deputy Attorney General, Shawn Wagner. · · · On 070697, at 1145 hrs, Agent Ron Diller observed Sam Willis and his son, Sterling checking in to the Super 8 Motel on 100 Alexander Spring Road, Carlisle, Pa. Subjects were in a purple 1937 Ford. Agent Diller had a brief conservation [sic] withe [sic] son who stated they just drove the vehicle from Texas. (emphasis added) This call was also recorded. 4There were numerous recorded phone calls detailed in the affidavit which contained references to the pending trip of Willis to Pennsylvania for the purpose of bringing large quantities of marihuana. On 070697, at 1400 hrs, Sam Willis called the CI and advised him that he was in town and asked for a "Watch." CI states that in the past "watch" is a code word by Willis and CI to denote a scale. CI said he did not have a scale at that time .... · · · On 070697, within the past two hours CI entered Room 121 of the Super 8 Motel under controlled circumstances and gave Willis a scale. CI exited and reported to Agent Ron Diller that CI observed marijuana in the room. CI handed Agent Diller a sample of marijuana from the room which tested positive for marijuana. 5. Search warrants were issued by District Justice Susan Day on the afternoon of July 6, 1997. 6. At approximately 5:30 p.m. that afternoon Agent Mohn and several other police officers executed the search warrants on the motel room occupied by the defendants as well as the vehicle they had driven up from Texas. 7. When the agents arrived to search the motel room, they were in field fatigues with police marked clearly on their hats and shirts, except Officer Mohn who was in street clothes. 8. Prior to serving the search warrant, one of the agents obtained a key for Defendants' room from the hotel management. 9. Agent Mohn, Agent Troutman, Agent O'Connell, Detective Vogenwriter, and other Police personnel went to the door. They were all crowded in a small hallway around the door. 10. One of the Officers knocked on the door and waited ten (10) seconds. There was no response. 11. The Officer knocked again and announced "police/search warrant ! ". 12. The Officers waited a "few seconds". 13. The door to the hotel room had a peep hole from which the occupants inside could see outside. During this "few second" wait, Agent O'Connell exclaimed that someone was looking out the peep hole. They then heard the dead bolt locking on the inside of the door. S sit should be noted that the motel is an economy motel with very thin walls and extremely small rooms. There is no question but that the occupants could hear and see the police officers in the hallway. 14. Agent Mohn felt that the occupants were buying time to destroy evidence or obtain weapons. 15. Immediately thereafter, the Officers tried to use the key to enter the door. When the key did not work they broke the door down and served the warrant. 16. The Officers gave the Defendants a copy of each search warrant and affidavits in support thereof as well as a copy of each receipt/inventory for the property seized. CONCLUS IONS OF LAW The affidavit of probable cause in support of the vehicle warrant was sufficient.6 The execution of the search warrant was in accordance with Rule 2007 and 2008 of the Pa. Rules of Criminal Procedure. AND NOW, this ORDER day of MARCH, 1998, after a hearing on Defendants' Omnibus Pre Trial Motion in the nature of a request to suppress evidence, the motion is DENIED. Michael S. Schwoyer, Esquire By the Court, Jerry J. Russo, Esquire Matthew R. Gover, Esquire /s/ Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, Judge 6While we recognize that probable cause for search warrants in this Commonwealth may be based only upon materials contained "within the four corners of the written affidavit," Commonwealth v. Edmunds 526 Pa. 374, 586 A.2d 887, (1991), that standard is clearly met. The Defendants drove the vehicle from Texas and they were bringing a large quantity of marijuana. The logical conclusion is that the vehicle was probably used to transport the marijuana.