Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-0731/1379/1540 criminalCOMMONWEALTH · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ' HE~ERT WALL GILSDORF, JR. · 99-0731 CRIMINAL TERM · 99- 1379 CRIMINAL TERM · 99-1540 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION _BEFORE GUIDO, AND NOW, this OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT o~ ~1 day of DECEMBER, 1999, the claims for relief contained in Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion in the nature of a motion to suppress evidence are DENIED. By the Edward E. Guido, J. Cumberland County District Attorney Karl E. Rominger, Esquire For the Defendant 'sld COMMONWEALTI-! · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HERBERT WALL GILSDORF, JR. · 99-0731 CRIMINAL TERM o · 99-1379 CRIMINAL TERM · 99-1540 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE' DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE GUIDO, OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT The Defendant has been charged in various informations with numerous counts of burglary. The parties have agreed that all cases should be consolidated for trial. Defendant has filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion in connection with the charges at the above term and numbers. However, the parties have also agreed that the issues raised in this Omnibus Pretrial Motion shall also apply to all other charges pending against the Defendant. The Defendant questions the legality of the initial warrantless search of his garage as well as the search warrant subsequently issued for his residence and various vehicles. An evidentiary hearing was held before this Court on December 15, 1999. We make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Pa. Rule of Criminal Procedure 323(i). FINDINGS OF FACT In the months immediately proceeding June 22, 1999, several businesses located 99-0731 CRIMINAL - 99-1379 CRIMINAL - 99-1540 CRIMINAL in the West Shore area of Cumberland County had been burglarized. Each of the burglaries appeared to be related in that some or all of the following factors were present: a. The burglaries took place late at night and entry was made through a rear or side door or window. The glass in a door or window was broken. b. Computer and/or telephone equipment was stolen. c. The perpetrator left cigarette ashes, cigarette butts and diet soda containers behind. d. Small metal ballbearings were used to break the windows. While on routine patrol on June 22, 1999, at 2:58 a.m. Patrolman Steven Shissler of the Hampden Township Police Department happened upon a burglary in progress at a local business. He noticed a suspect in the vacinity of the building and immediately called for assistance. The other officers arrived and set up a perimeter around the building. They immediately started their investigation. Entry had been made on the side of the building where a glass door had been shattered. Inside the building various items were stacked up and ready to be taken from the premises. It was also apparent that the perpetrator had rummaged through several desks. In addition, the officers found diet coke bottles as well as cigarette butts and ashes. There are woods located directly behind the building. Based upon physical evidence found at the scene, it became apparent that the burglar had made his escape into those woods. The police checked the immediate area for any cars that might have been involved in the burglary. Most of the vehicles were covered with dew. There was one notable exception. Officer McAndrew found a pickup truck hidden behind a construction trailer in an unoccupied business park. This particular pickup truck had no dew on it. The 99-0731 CRIMINAL - 99-1379 CRIMINAL - 99-1540 CRIMINAL office.~' fcit thc hood and noticed that it was warm. He looked inside the track and saw kcys i:~y~g on the dashboard. He opened the track and put the keys in the ignition.~ The officer then proceeded to run the vehicle registration. The vehicle was registered to a Donna J. Hoover who resided in Upper Allen Township. Officer McAndrew requested that the Upper Allen Township Police go to the home of Donna J. Hoover for further investigation. Although a 1992 Mazda Sedan was parked in the driveway, nobody was home at the Hoover residence. The Mazda was registered to the Defendant at 9 Briar~vood Court in Hampden Township. This information was relayed to Officer McAndrew. Officer McAndrew and Officer Heckard proceeded to 9 Briarwood Court. They arrived at the residence shortly before 6'00 a.m. As they walked up the driveway, Officer McAndrew noticed the garage door was open and a television was playing inside. He hollered into the garage to see if anybody was there. Receiving no answer, he took several steps into the garage and hollered again. There was no response.2 The officer then went to the front door and rang the doorbell. After several minutes the door was answered by the Defendant's wife. She indicated that the Defendant was not at home and that she did not know where he was. The officers obtained permission from her to search the garage. While in the garage, they found a computer tower with a serial number which indicated that it had been stolen from one of the other burglaries.3 The officers also found additional computer equipment which they ~ We do not address the issue of whether or not the officer had authority to enter the vehicle since it is not relevant to our decision in this case. During the entry, the officer did not discover or seize any evidence which was used to justify the search warrant which was properly obtained later that morning. 2 We do not address the issue of whether or not the officer had authority to enter the garage since it is not relevant to our decision in this case. During the entry, the officer did not discover or seize any evidence which was used to justify the search warrant which was properly obtained later that morning. 3 Officer McAndrew checked the serial number by radio. 99-0731 CRIMINAL - 99-1379 CRIMINAL - 99-1540 CRIMINAL believed to have been related to the prior burglaries. All of this equipment was seized by the officers at that time.4 While Officers McAndrew and Heck.ard were conducting the search of the Defendant's garage, Officer Shissler noticed somebody walking in the general direction of the Defendant's truck. Officer Shissler approached th.e individual and asked him to identify himself. Although the individual had no identification on him, he indicated that he was Herbert Gilsdorf and that he lived at 9 Briarwood Court in Hampden Township. The officer noticed that the Defendant's legs and arms were scratched and that there were leaves and twigs in his hair. In addition, Officer Shissler had been advised by radio of the events occurring at the Gilsdorf's residence. Based upon all of the information available to the officer at that time, he placed the Defendant under arrest. Later that morning, the shift supervisor, Sergeant Michael Andreoli applied for and was granted a search warrant. The warrant authorized the search of the Defendant's residence, the pickup truck belonging to Donna J. Hoover and Defendant's Mazda. The warrants were properly executed and various additional items of evidence were seized. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1) The search of Defendant's garage at 9 Briarwood Court was appropriate and performed pursuant to a valid consent given by Robin Gilsdorf, the Defendant's wife. Commonwealth v. Cleckley, 738 A.2d 427 (Pa. 1999); Commonwealth v. Rucci, 543 Pa. 261,670 A.2d 1129 (1996). 4 Defendant's wife had executed a consent form in which she agreed that the officers could take any "property which is contraband, or may be used as evidence in any criminal proceedings." See Commonwealth Exhibit 1. CRIMINAL - 99-1379 CRIMINAL - 99-1540 CRIMINAL 2) Ti~e search warrant was supported by adequate probable cause. Commonwealth v. 526 Pa. 374, 586 A.2d 887 (1991). 3) Defendant's request to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the warrantless search of his garage as well as the additional evidence seized pursuant to the subsequently issued search warrant should be denied. Commonwealth .v. Gullett, 459 Pa. 431,329 A.2d 513 (1974); Commonwealth v. Bagley, 408 Pa. Super. 188,596 A.2d 811 (1991). ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22st) day of DECEMBER, 1999, the claims for relief contained in Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion in the nature of a motion to suppress evidence are DENIED. By the Court, /s/Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J. cc' Cumberland County District Attorney Karl E. Rominger, Esquire For the Defendant :sld